Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

PETITION

New Hospital, North Devon

Mr. Thorpe: I beg leave to present a Petition signed by 53,000 people in the North Devon area drawn from the North Devon division and parts of the Torrington and Tavistock constituencies relating to the need for a new hospital.
The Petition shows that there are 1,000 people at present on the waiting list for admission to the hospital, that the building in question is 138 years old and is inadequate to meet those needs and that in the second revision to the hospital building scheme published in May this year the proposal was that the new hospital building programme should be postponed by three years so that the new building date would be in 1971.
This postponement, in the view of the petitioners, has placed an intolerable burden on the medical and nursing staffs concerned and on general practitioners and will cause grave hardship to the general public.
The purpose of this Petition is to pray that the date for the commencement of the new hospital building scheme should be reinstated to the year 1968 and that the existing cottage hospitals should be retained for auxiliary services.
The Petition represents the united feeling of the people living in this area. It is a rural area of some 800 sq. miles and 53,000 names have been collected

in a period of eight days. Some have been obtained by people travelling across Exmoor on horseback, and even the inhabitants of the Island of Lundy have appended their names to the Petition.
The Minister has indicated that he is reconsidering all the plans for hospital building, and the object of this Petition is, first, to show him how passionately the people of this part of the world want a new hospital so that people will not have to wait upward of 5½ years for surgical treatment and, secondly, it is hoped that he will give hope to those who are sick and encouragement to the medical profession which is having to carry on in intolerable conditions.
Therefore, I beg leave, with the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). to present this Petition on behalf of these 53,000 people and hope that the prayer in the Petition will be acceded to by the Minister at the earliest possible moment.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

National Coal Board (Capital Structure)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power if he will undertake a complete review of the capital structure of the National Coal Board, in view of the interest charges which are at present borne by the industry.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): This will be part of the review I announced in the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 1st December, 1964.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this review, which is very long overdue, will give a good deal of satisfaction to the miners and the mining community of this country, but can he give any indication when he will be able to make a statement as to what progress has been made?

Mr. Lee: No. I will get on with the review as quickly as possible, but I cannot at this stage anticipate when it will be completed.

Mr. Peyton: Without committing myself, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that any massive write-off of capital which would amount to a subsidy for coal is likely to receive a very chilly welcome from this side of the House?

Mr. Lee: Perhaps we had better await the outcome of the review.

Nationalised Industries (Machinery and Equipment)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power what is Her Majesty's Government's policy toward allowing the National Coal Board to manufacture the machinery and equipment it needs; and what proposals he has for implementing this policy.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to require the Central Electricity Generating Board to use their pulverised fuel ash for the manufacture of bricks and building blocks.

Mr. Bishop: asked the Minister of Power if, in order to encourage the National Coal Board to manufacture some of the machinery and equipment it needs, he will remove the present restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Frederick Lee: With permission I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 23 and 35 together.
I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on the 4th December.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave uncertainty among firms manufacturing equipment for the National Coal Board, not least in the factory which makes mining pit props in my constituency? Will he do nothing to extend the area of the nationalisation? Will he undertake to leave things as they are in this matter?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the Act, the Board has extensive powers to manufacture machinery, equipment, and other goods. Whether these powers are adequate is a matter we shall be considering in the review.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend press on with all speed in allowing the National Coal Board to provide in its own workshops as much of its equipment as it possibly can, in particular in development districts like Cowdenbeath where further work for the Board's workshops would be very welcome?

Mr. Lee: The Board's policy is to employ its own men on such work as sinking shafts and driving roadways where it feels that this would be to better advantage than placing the work with private industry. In the review we shall look at the matters raised by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was my right hon. Friend answering my Question No. 23, as he said he would? The Question dealt with the Central Electricity Generating Board and not the National Coal Board.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would answer Question No. 23. I was observing the hon. Lady's movements with some interest but they did not take place.

Mr. Varley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is under-used capacity in the National Coal Board's workshops which could well be used for the manufacture of machinery and equipment? Will he advise the Board to institute a searching inquiry to see what surplus capacity there is for this purpose?

Mr. Lee: As I have said, the National Coal Board has powers within the Statute to do certain types of manufacture. I will be discussing these matters with Lord Robens in the near future.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board now produces about 8 per cent. of the country's brick output? Is he further aware that this nationalised brick industry is anxious to make its contribution to the building programme of the new Labour Government and that it is "raring" to go? Will he give the nationalised brick industry—a most profitable part of the National Coal Board—the green light to go ahead and do precisely that?

Mr. Lee: I am very keen, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public


Building and Works, to see a substantial increase in the number of bricks available and I hope that the National Coal Board will look very seriously to see if it can increase its output of bricks.

Smokeless Fuels

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power how stocks in November of opengrate and other solid smokeless fuels compare with those in November last year; and whether he is satisfied that supplies are adequate to meet demands due to the increased number of smoke control areas.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that supplies of all kinds of smokeless fuel will be adequate during the coming winter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that there is an adequate amount of smokeless fuel for the winter; and what steps he is taking to stimulate supplies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris): Stocks of most smokeless fuels are better than last year and in general supplies will be adequate this winter; but there may be local shortages of particular types. The producers are fully seized of the importance of satisfying the market and consumers can help by placing orders in good time.

Mr. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the area near my constituency there are local authorities which have come to very different conclusions? Is he satisfied with the working of all the regional advisory councils, and particularly the one near my area?

Mr. Morris: The confirmation of an order is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the advisory councils.

Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are glad to know that he has been left with adequate stocks for the current year? Will he make the greatest effort to ensure that there are adequate supplies of both Gloco and reactivated fuel for unimproved open grates?

Mr. Morris: All grades of gas coke are stocked to higher levels than at this

time last year. The hon. Gentleman referred to Gloco, the cheapest open fire coke. This is in good supply in the South and in the Midlands, and in adequate supply for existing consumers in smoke control areas in the North and North-West. Those gas boards which make premium fuels, Cleanglow and Phimax, expect to meet the demand for them.

Colonel Lancaster: In view of the various statements which have appeared from one year to the next about the output of smokeless fuel at Birch Coppice, can he say whether one single ton has been produced at this plant for household consumption?

Mr. Morris: If I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman correctly, with regard to adequate supplies of fuel in future, the National Coal Board has under consideration a number of other sites for making smokeless fuel. The rate at which plants are set up will depend largely on the demand.

Colonel Lancaster: That is not what I asked. I asked whether any production was occurring at this moment at Birch Coppice. The hon. Gentleman is aware that £9 million of public money has been spent on that plant. I am sure that the House will be anxious to know whether at long last anything is being produced for the householder at that plant.

Mr. Morris: I am sorry that I did not correctly understand the question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a Question about that plant, I shall endeavour to answer it.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to control the retail price of prepacked smokeless fuels.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister realise that the shocking prices charged for these bags of fuel last winter was a particular hardship on elderly people, living in one or two rooms in a smokeless zone, who were compelled to buy the fuel in this form because they had no storage space? In view of the fact that the worst of the winter is before us and that there is a real danger of some of these old people dying from hypothermia, will he review


the machinery for price control to prevent a similar racket this winter with the accompanying tragedies which may well follow?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of this difficulty. The ability of consumers in general to shop around and choose is the most effective safeguard against excessive prices for prepacked fuel. I am aware of the suggestion of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council that the recommended selling price should be marked on packets of prepacked fuel. I hope that this practice will be adopted as far as is practicable. I have no power to require the price to be marked on packs in this way.

Smokeless Zones

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the extent to which the impetus behind the drive for clean air and smokeless zones is being arrested by the dearth of suitable fuel at suitable prices.

Mr. John Morris: I am not aware of a general shortage of suitable fuels. While gas coke may not be available in some parts of the country there should be ample supplies of other smokeless fuels, some of which may cost no more to use than gas coke.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a bag of ordinary coal costs 10s., whereas a bag of smokeless fuel costs 14s., and that this makes smokeless zones very unpopular, particularly with old people, and puts local authorities which are doing their best to carry out a clean air programme in a very awkward situation? Will he do something to remove the discrepancy between the prices of coal and smokeless fuel which people are obliged to burn in these zones?

Mr. Morris: I have no power to control prices. This is a matter for the producers, who are in active competition with each other, and can be relied on not to endanger their own markets.

Mines (Horses)

Mr. Weatherill: asked the Minister of Power how many horses were employed below ground in the mines throughout the country last year.

Mr. John Morris: The National Coal Board employed 4,737 on 30th June, 1964.

Mr. Weatherill: Can my hon. Friend hold out any hope of these animals being replaced by machines?

Mr. Morris: Horses are still kept in some of the older coalfields, where the method of work is such that mechanical help is impracticable. The National Coal Board expects that by the early 1970s horses will be no longer needed in the mines.

Mr. Ogden: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that although we are all animal lovers, some hon. Members on this side of the House—and certainly those with recent experience in the mines—believe that more attention should be paid to the welfare of the men who work in the pits than to financial and production considerations? Will he give this point some attention?

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Renée Short.

Mrs. Renée Short: Question No. 23.

Hon. Members: Answered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been some confusion. The hon. Lady's Question No. 23 has already been answered; we had a little word about it. I called her to ask Question No. 24.

Mrs. Renée Short: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we were answering Question No. 24 and calling it Question No. 23.

Brick Production

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to increase its output of bricks, and to modernise its plant for this purpose.

Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir, but I have been in touch with the National Coal Board and understand it is planning a substantial increase in its production of bricks.

Mr. Ridley: If there is to be an increase in the production of bricks or anything else by the Coal Board, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he


intends to squeeze out the private manufacturers outright, because it is important for them to know the answer to that question?

Mr. Lee: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should object, especially at a time when there is such a great shortage of bricks—probably brought about by the lack of planning on the part of his right hon. Friends when they were in Government. As a matter of fact, the production of bricks by the Board in the year 1963–64 was 488 million. This year it is expected to be 506 million. Current plans provide for an increase up to 550 million by 1966–67.

Mr. Popplewell: Will my right hon. Friend rest assured that he will have the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House if he restores to all the publicly-owned undertakings for which he is responsible full commercial freedom to carry out whatever undertakings they determine are in the best interests of the nation?

Mr. Lee: As I said in answer to a previous Question, there are within the Statutes powers to manufacture. I have also pointed out that we propose to conduct an inquiry to see whether those powers are wide enough. When we have concluded our inquiry I will let the House know the result.

Domestic Coal (Quality)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware of the general concern felt at the quality of coal reaching the domestic consumer; and what action he proposes to take to help solve this problem.

Mr. John Morris: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) on 1st December.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in spite of heavy investment in new machinery by the coal industry and in spite of the closing down of uneconomic pits, the industry is making a loss of £40 million a year? Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that he will not raise the price of coal so that old-age pensioners particularly, and others, do not have to pay more for the inefficiencies of nationalisation?

Mr. Morris: I do not know from where the hon. Member gets the figure of £40 million a year. I appreciate his concern for the old-age pensioners. I wish that the party opposite had felt equally concerned in the last 13 years. I have no reason to suppose that the quality of coal generally is poor or that the practice of selling lower or mixed quality coals at high-grade prices is becoming widespread. The National Coal Board does everything possible to maintain the quality of coal as it leaves the pits.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Overhead Lines, West Sussex

Mr. Hordern: asked the Minister of Power whether, in view of the continuing concern expressed in West Sussex over the decision to construct a 400 kilovolt overhead line from Bolney to Lovedean. he will order a public inquiry to be held.

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received concerning the decision to construct a 400 kilovolt overhead line from Bolney to Lovedean; and whether he will review the decision.

Mr. Frederick Lee: A public inquiry was held in 1963. There has been a considerable volume of further protest since my predecessor came to a decision last July. On the possibility of a review I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) and Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) on 1st December.

Mr. Hordern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in supporting this decision, he is going against expert advice about the safety of these pylons, that there is considerable dispute about the cost of underground cables and that, in upholding the decision, he is going against the advice of his own Department's inspectors about the routing of these pylons? In the light of these factors, will he now call for a further inquiry and take what further steps may be necessary to reverse the existing position?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman should realise that this was not just an administrative decision. It was a formal consent issued to the Board under the Act


after all statutory requirements had been applied. If a Minister had power to withdraw consent at any time, boards would be placed in an impossible position.

Mr. Loveys: In view of the great concern over the increase of pylons crossing the countryside, could not the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that everything possible is being done through scientific research to hasten the day when this type of cable can be economically buried underground? Will he be able to make a statement on the subject in the near future?

Mr. Lee: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the figures. The cost of putting a 400 kV cable underground would be about £1 million per mile as against £54,000 per mile for overhead construction. The Board and I—as was, I am sure, my predecessor—are very conscious of the problem of amenity and will do everything possible to improve the position as scientific research makes it possible to do so.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the M.1 on its most expensive stretch cost less than £1 million a mile and that we find it quite impossible to believe that it would cost even one-tenth of that to bury a cable?

Mr. Lee: My hon. and learned Friend will remember some of the things that have happened to the M.1 as well. I do not claim expert knowledge on this matter. I merely take the figures that experts have given to me.

Mr. Hordern: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Second Nuclear Power Programme

Mr. McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Power whether the White Paper, the Second Nuclear Power Programme, Command Paper No. 2335, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the future nuclear programme in the electricity industry.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Power whether the Government have yet completed their review, with the electricity supply industry and the Atomic Energy Authority, of the type or types of reactor to be built in the second nuclear power programme; and what decision has been reached.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave my hon. Friend—the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) on 1st December.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister tell us whether any progress is being made in finding a reactor to replace the Magnox system at present being used, because this is very important to the programme as a whole?

Mr. Lee: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are decisions to be taken about the types of the reactor to be used. At this stage it is impossible to give a precise date when we will have these tenders, but the Government are keeping in close touch with the progress that is being made in this matter, and as soon as possible I shall inform the House.

Mr. Digby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many tenders have been received for the AGR type of reactor and how many for the water moderated type of reactor, and when we can expect a final answer on this, as the White Paper was laid in April?

Mr. Lee: Tenders will be received in February, but before receipt I cannot say for which type of reactor they are going to tender.

Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister saying that we shall have to wait at any rate until February before we hear anything on this important matter? I hope that he will do everything that he can to clear up this damaging uncertainty.

Mr. Lee: The date for the receipt of tenders is February, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience, until we get the tenders we cannot anticipate the sort of reactors for which they are going to tender.

Tidal Barrages (Electricity Generation)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Power what consideration he is giving to the production of electricity through peripheral generators placed in tidal barrages in suitable estuaries, where such barrages could also be used to support roads in place of the construction of bridges.

Mr. John Morris: The possibilities are kept under review, but in the most promising such scheme proposed in this country, the Central Electricity Generating Board estimates the cost of generating electricity would not be competitive.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that electricity is generated by tidal power in France and that there are schemes for doing the same thing in America? Further, is he aware of the excellent research done at Sheffield University which shows that the new type of generators could generate electricity at ½d. a unit? Is it not madness to have these millions of horse power of tidal power going to waste around our shores?

Mr. Morris: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are real fundamental engineering difficulties here. The main engineering problems are silting up of the barrage basin and hindrance to navigation. Another problem is that power is not always produced when it is needed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a scheme in France. There are differences here. The French scheme operates in particularly favourable circumstances. It has been possible to extend the normal tidal power cycle there by adding a pumped storage scheme, but this could not be done effectively in the most favourable place in this country, namely, the Severn Estuary.

Overhead Lines (Towers)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Power how many 160-ft. towers for 400 kW. lines have now been erected; and what representations he has received from the areas affected.

Mr. Frederick Lee: 1,377 towers 160 ft. or more in height have now been erected in various parts of the country. Since the work of erection has begun

one complaint has been received in the Ministry from Dorset and a petition from North Wales about the crossing of the Dwyryd estuary.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentle, man aware that many complaints have been made to hon. Members, pointing out how unsightly these towers are? Will he consult the Board about them and see whether some improvement can be made in their general design? He said earlier that he was interested in the amenity aspect of the matter.

Mr. Lee: The provision of electricity is also a pretty good amenity. The design of these towers was submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, which made no comment. [Laughter.] I say that to show how fair I am in these matters. In preparing the final design the Board had the advice of Sir William Holford.

Miss Quennell: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether it is the policy of his Ministry constantly to pursue improvements in design from the point of view of aesthetics and amenity? Has there been any consultation with foreign countries, in order to ascertain whether their designs are susceptible of adaptation to our landscape?

Mr. Lee: I can assure the hon. Lady that we are as concerned as she is about this kind of thing. A great deal of research has gone on, and as soon as there is a possibility of improvement we will do everything possible to bring it into being.

Privately-owned Meters (Electricity Charges)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power if he will now give a general direction to area boards to use their powers under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957, to control the price at which electricity supplied by them is resold through privately-operated meters.

Mr. Bishop: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that some tenants, sub-tenants and guests are being forced to pay high prices for metered electricity; and if he will issue a general direction to boards to take steps, under


Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957, to ensure that prices charged are reasonable.

Mr. John Morris: I am aware of a number of cases where there has been overcharging for electricity re-sold through privately-owned meters. The Chairman of the Electricity Council, in a letter to the former Minister which was reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 13th February this year, has explained why the electricity boards have not so far used their powers under Section 29. My right hon. Friend is examining with the Electricity Council how to prevent these abuses.

Sir J. Eden: Can the Minister say how widespread this practice is, and what information his Department has received? Does not he agree that Section 29 makes provision for every conceivable variation in circumstance of resale, and in those circumstances is it not desirable that the boards should fix a maximum resale price?

Mr. Morris: A number of cases has been brought to our attention. I should prefer not to go into detail as to the possible ways of meeting the difficulty until my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Electricity Council. He will certainly bear in mind any suggestions that are made in this House, and any complaints that reach him.

Mr. Bishop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the freedom to make this excessive charge for metered electricity also enables landlords to make a substantial increase in their rent incomes, and that this helps to violate any controls we have upon rents? Will he therefore emphasise the urgency of the matter with his friends in the electricity boards?

Mr. Morris: I appreciate to the full the point that has been made. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that many practical difficulties arise from the fact that tariff structures and amounts used by the consumer vary, and also the first block of units is priced differently from later blocks. Difficulties also arise from the fact that although meters which are the property of the electricity boards have to be certified, those which are the property of the landlords—as they frequently are—do not

have to be certified. These practical difficulties exist, but my right hon. Friend is consulting the Electricity Council as to the best means of meeting what is undoubtedly an important problem.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware this is one of the worst rackets of irresponsible landlords, and is very widespread? Could not the problem be tackled by making it illegal for anybody other than an electricity board to retail electricity at a profit?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member knows a great deal about irresponsible landlords. [Interruption.] I am not referring to the hon. Member personally—but the party opposite were in power for 13 years, and landlords have from time to time taken unfair advantage of their tenants. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if we are to do justice in this case we must find the most practical solution.

Isolated Areas (Supplies)

Mr. Tinn: asked the Minister of Power whether he will take steps to alter the conditions of connecting groups of isolated cottages to mains electricity, so that occupiers who refuse to join a scheme are not subsequently connected to the supply without bearing their share of the capital cost.

Mr. John Morris: I regret that my right hon. Friend has no power to deal with my hon. Friend's point under existing legislation.

Mr. Tinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing Answer? Will he consider amending the legislation so as to give the Minister power to remove this anomaly, which causes considerable injustice to people who live in isolated cottages?

Mr. Morris: I cannot say when it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to introduce amending legislation. As for the general point, as the electrification of the countryside nears completion the problem becomes a diminishing one. In practice, in most cases boards manage to settle these difficulties by agreement.

Fernhurst Valley (Overhead Lines)

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Minister of Power what would be the extra cost of carrying out the recommendations of


the Central Electricity Generating Board's inspector to adopt the blue route in the Fernhurst Valley as opposed to the red route for the line of 160 ft. high pylons proposed, thus following the least conspicuous route across the area about to be declared as of outstanding natural beauty.

Mr. Frederick Lee: About £108,000. The recommendation was made by inspectors appointed by my predecessor to hold the public inquiry.

Sir T. Beamish: Does the fact that consent has been given mean that even the route cannot be varied? In view of the very small extra cost, in comparison with the cost of burying this cable, is not the best answer a compromise of this sort, rather than that we should ruin one of the most glorious stretches of the English countryside?

Mr. Lee: The main reason for rejection was that the so-called blue route appeared to have little hope of being more acceptable than the present route, since the National Parks Commission, the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England preferred the red route, which the Board put forward on the recommendation of Miss Sylvia Crowe, the eminent landscape consultant.

Mr. Hordern: How does the Minister explain the fact that his own inspectors preferred the blue route as opposed to the red route in this area, on the specific ground that it would affect far fewer residents than would have been affected by the original route?

Mr. Lee: I cannot explain the reasons for the inspectors coming to that decision; all I can say is that the Minister is not bound to accept the recommendations of his inspectorate. I should think that the answer is that the hon. Member might have consulted the former Minister of Power.

Sir T. Beamish: What does the Minister mean when he says that the blue route would have little hope of being more acceptable than the red route? What has that to do with it?

Mr. Lee: All the objections that have been raised in respect of the existing route would have been raised in connection with the other route, if that had

been preferred. There would have been equal protestation from those who would have been affected if that route had been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Nationalised Industries (Financial Objectives)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Power what is his policy concerning financial objectives for those nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The nationalised fuel and power industries for which I am responsible will continue to work to financial objectives agreed from time to time between the Government and the boards.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is very welcome? We are delighted to hear that he is to follow the policy set by the previous Government, which is very important. Is he further aware of the great sympathy we will feel for him in explaining this to hon. Members opposite?

South Wales (Iron Ore Imports)

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking in order to ensure that, in future, facilities for the import of iron ore into South Wales will be considered as a whole.

Mr. John Morris: The National Ports Council is at present studying ore importing facilities in South Wales and will be making recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Future planning and action on this matter in the iron and steel industry will be greatly facilitated by the restoration of public ownership over the main part of the industry.

Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from that last shot, it would be totally intolerable if a jetty were built from the Spencer Steelworks at Newport to Bristol Deeps until there is a complete survey of the economic arrangements in South Wales and adequate protection of all amenities on the Somerset coastline?

Mr. Morris: In view of his interest in this matter, the hon. Member should be


aware that the National Ports Council is conducting a survey of all the interests concerned and of all the matters concerning South Wales and will be making recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members saw the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on 25th November about this matter.

Steel Industry

Mr. Iain Macleod: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the future of firms which have substantial interests outside steel.

Mr. Frederick Lee: As my right hon. Friend, the First Secretary of State, told the House on 4th November, the Government do not intend to use the nationalisation of the steel industry to take into public ownership the main activities of companies which have substantial iron and steel interests but whose predominant interests are clearly in engineering and other activities. Consultations about this have been started with the industry.

Mr. Macleod: But does the Minister realise that it is necessary to remove as much uncertainty as quickly as possible in this area? Does he accept that almost the only thing we agreed upon in the steel debate was that this should be done as speedily as possible? Will he now undertake to make a statement of intent before Christmas?

Mr. Lee: I cannot give an absolute date, but since the debate took place we have been in constant touch with as many segments of the industry as wished to discuss things with us, including the Federation, the Steel Board and any other components of the industry which wished to discuss matters with us.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

Natural Gas (Imports)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the volume and value of natural gas imported this year; how much has been fed in to the natural gas pipeline grid between Canvey Island and the North; and what information he has about the future supply of natural gas to gas undertakings connected to the grid.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Twenty million therms of Algerian gas have been imported at an estimated landed cost of 6¼d. per therm, and rather more than three-quarters of this has been supplied to area gas boards. The planned rate of the scheme is about 350 million therms per year which should be reached during the course of the winter. There are no firm proposals for imports of natural gas beyond this.

Mr. Osborn: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to state whether the programme for feeding natural gas to all the gas works through the grid has gone according to schedule, and whether he is satisfied with that programme?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the enterprise of the gas industry, in co-operation with private firms, in making arrangements for these new supplies of gas is much admired? Will he bear in mind also the great urgency of proceeding as quickly as possible with arrangements for the underground storage of the gas, because this is essential to enable the industry to get the best benefit out of it in the interests of the consumer?

Mr. Lee: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the great enterprise shown by this nationalised body. The second point is rather a different matter, which one has very much in mind.

Mr. Bellenger: Now that my right hon. Friend is able to import this gas at a very cheap price, may I ask when consumers will reap the benefit in prices, too?

Mr. Lee: The Algerian gas will help the boards to offset increased costs and to stabilise prices, but it is still a very small proportion of the boards' total supplies and it cannot at this stage lead to general price reductions.

Mr. Peyton: May I press the Minister on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd)? Is the Minister aware that if the gas industry is to make full use of these important developments like methane it is necessary to provide underground storage? Can he press his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to allow time for a Gas Bill for this purpose?

Mr. Lee: I am seized of the importance of this point, and it really is a question of when we can get legislation into the programme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this project.

MINISTERS (STATEMENTS)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Prime Minister what is to be the practice of Ministers regarding the priority they are to give to making Departmental statements to the House of Commons, or to the Press.

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Prime Minister why, and at what time, information was given to the Press regarding the proposed corporation tax, before such information was announced to Parliament.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Prime Minister by what criteria Ministers decide which matters should be announced first in the House of Commons before release to the Press.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. George Brown: I am obliged to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I have been asked to reply.
There is no change in the long-established practice in these matters.

Sir J. Eden: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the leaks which have taken place since his Government took office seem to indicate that in some way the Government are trying to by-pass Parliament? Why was it that on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take the first opportunity to follow up his leak with a statement in the House?

Mr. Brown: If the Opposition really want to call into question a convention which they used for 13 years and which goes back far, far longer than that, we are willing to discuss it with them but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to talk to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about it before in fact he does it.

Sir T. Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is very much a House of Commons matter and not a matter of party politics? Does he further agree that the maintenance of the existing very friendly relationship between Press and Parliament is of great importance, highly valued and well tried; but that the week before last it appeared that this relationship was seriously upset when the Government refused to give Parliament information to which hon. Members thought they were entitled, and subsequently gave it to the Press, and even refused to confirm to Parliament what the Press had already been told?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, and I repeat that I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better talk to his own Front Bench about this before he goes on with the subject.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does not the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate the constitutional significance of leaking to the Press unofficially, through an unnamed spokesman, matters relating to taxation? Will he say who in fact was responsible for the actual leak? Who was it who actually made it? Will he confirm that in fact it was none other than the Prime Minister himself?

Mr. Brown: There was no leak. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very well, if the Opposition want to challenge a convention that was in existence many Parliaments before we arrived here, let them do it. I wonder whether one of the alternative Leaders of the Opposition would like to get up and support his hon. Friends.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no wish on our side to challenge the confidential relationship between Press and Parliament, nor in this instance is there any criticism at all of the action of the Press? May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that what seems to us to have been an abuse of this practice is to use that method of passing on particular information with the intention that it should be acted upon?

Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was recently


the Leader of the House, tell me what he used to do on a certain evening in the week?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can find no previous example where information with regard to taxation)—[Hors MEMBERS: "Oh."]—was passed on with the intention that action should be taken upon it?

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I could find many—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—This is a matter for Parliament—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends want to play politics, O.K., but is he aware that I have many examples where he did exactly the same thing?

GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Sir S. McAdden: asked the Prime Minister how long is the tenure of office of the Governor of the Bank of England.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Five years, Sir.

Sir S. McAdden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any recent attempt to terminate this tenure of office by premature resignation and, if so, why?

Mr. Brown: That does not seem to arise on this Question. I answered the Question as it was put down.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the Labour Government very much beholden to the Governor of the Bank of England? Have they not changed the slogan "Workers of the World, Unite" into "Bankers of the World, Unite" to save sterling from Socialism and the Socialists from themselves?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No word of that arises from the Answer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Captain Orr: asked the Prime Minister when he will announce the special measures Her Majesty's Govern-

intend to take to offset the effect of the Government's deflationary policy upon the economy of Northern Ireland.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong again. I do not accept his premise, so no such measures are called for.

Captain Orr: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that the policy of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and the additional tax on petrol are not meant to be deflationary, because so far as I understand it that is quite the contrary to what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about this measure? If they are meant to be deflationary, should not the Government take special measures to safeguard Northern Ireland from them?

Mr. Brown: There are very many differences between the policies we are pursuing and those tragic and almost fatal ones which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's right hon. Friends pursued and which landed the country in the difficulties it is now in.

Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree that it is the policy of the Government to introduce an element of deflation or disinflation into the economy, will he kindly read the recent speeches of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Brown: And as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was one of the band who got us into this trouble, he should try to help to get us out of it.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Since the effect of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate is not likely to be reflected in the unemployment figures of Northern Ireland for some time to come, is not this the time for the right hon. Gentleman to look at the whole I.D.C. situation with a view to seeing whether he can get a more positive deflection of industry to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is really trying to help Northern Ireland, as distinct from trying to score a political point, he may like to know that the Ministers of Northern Ireland and I have been in much closer contact during the


last seven weeks than they ever were with the previous Administration. We will do our best to see that the tragic situation that has afflicted Northern Ireland during all these years of total Tory rule there does not go on any longer.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INFORMATION)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions to all Government Departments to increase the output of information, statistical and otherwise, for the benefit of Members of Parliament and of the general public.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Departments are already aware of the need to publish as much information as possible. They are examining existing statistics to identify any important gaps in the data available and considering means by which they might be filled.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this might well involve a major reorganisation of the Government's statistical machinery and, if so, will he give an undertaking that such a reorganisation will be carried out expeditiously?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. If that emerges from the investigation the answer is "Certainly".

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that too much information is given to the public? Is he aware that on one Sunday I read in four Sunday newspapers about the reduction of the Rhine Army, that the next day that was contradicted and that a few days later that story was also contradicted? Is not the British public getting bewildered by this welter of information?

Mr. Brown: The Question is about information. The hon. Gentleman is talking about fairy tales.

CHEQUERS (GUARD DOGS)

Mr. Dance: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider conserving manpower by using dogs to guard Chequers in future.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir, when appropriate.

Mr. Dance: Surely life under Socialism is a dog's life? Should not dogs play a fuller part on these occasions?

Mr. Brown: The last time dogs were used was to protect Mr. Macmillan.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend agree, if he is going to consider the use of dogs to guard Chequers, that he should not employ dirty dogs—and so avoid any infiltration by hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consult the R.S.P.C.A.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear if we are concerned with cruelty to animals or whatever it is.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consult with the R.S.P.C.A. before using dogs for this purpose?

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Hirst: asked the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Ministry of Technology is to be the sponsor department for the machine tools, electronics, telecommunications, and computer industries, whether he will give an assurance that this arrangement will not entail strings being attached to Government contracts with a view to the acquisition of capital by the State in such industries.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
The Ministry of Technology will use whatever measures seem right to promote technological advance in these industries and in industry generally.

Mr. Hirst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not answer the Question, which asked if he would give an assurance to industry that no strings will be attached? Will he answer that Question, or perhaps the House will excuse him while he gets on the "hot line" to Washington?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that that was well worked out, but it did not really


work. The answer is the exact reply which I gave to the Question: that my right hon. Friend will use such measures as in the circumstances seem right.

OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister when he will appoint an Ombudsman.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Would my right hon. Friend, whom we all hold in high regard, agree, particularly in the light of recent cases affecting the police, that it is of the utmost importance that there should be an outside, independent person to deal with matters of this kind?

Mr. Brown: As it is 33 years since I first made a speech urging the hon. Member's return to Parliament, I take the first part of his remarks as a rather belated but a nevertheless welcome recognition. The answer to his supplementary question is, Yes, Sir, but I am not yet ready to announce an actual decision.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider including in the terms of reference of this Ombudsman the provision of some sort of clearing house facilities for hon. Members so that they may address their letters on behalf of their constituents to the right Departments and be able to find their way through the mass of Bills, orders, leaks and so on and know the right Ministers to whom to address their remarks?

Mr. Brown: If the new Chief Whip opposite is not available, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to any decision on this matter, will he give the most careful consideration to the proposition put forward by a former learned Clerk of the House, Sir Edward Fellowes, for the setting up of a Select Committee designed to establish whether an abuse about which a grievance has been made was caused by faulty legislation or faulty administration?

Mr. Brown: We have this very much in mind. There are a whole range of

questions to be discussed and some very real points for which we must try to make provision. As I say, these things are in mind.

CORPORATION AND CAPITAL GAINS TAXES (PROPOSALS)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a short statement.
As the House will recall, I promised that as soon as I was able to do so I would provide further details of my proposals for a corporation tax and a capital gains tax.
I am accordingly circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in reply to a Written Question on the Order Paper today, information about certain features of the proposals which, as at present advised, I have it in mind to put before Parliament.

Mr. Maudling: We cannot comment until we see the details, but is the Chancellor aware that, while everyone will welcome anything designed to rectify the damage done by instant Government in this field, we on this side are very doubtful, once again, about the method used to propagate this information? Unless I am wrong, it seems that the first that all hon. Members except one will hear of this will be in the newspapers.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know that this is very "instant", because the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) indicated in his Budget speeches in 1961 and 1962 that he was considering introducing this tax to get rid of the Income Tax and Profits Tax—[Interruption.] I have looked it up this morning.
I think that there is a very real desire for information. I am, therefore, arranging to put copies in the Library, and also, at four o'clock, copies of the Written Answer will be available in the Vote Office, so that hon. Members generally can see what is proposed.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that on the occasions referred to, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) indicated consideration, but the right hon. Gentleman himself in his recent speech indicated intention,


which is very different? Whilst appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman's intention now is to restore the confidence destroyed by the Government themselves, will he bear in mind that confidence will only be properly revived if the Government make a forthright declaration that they appreciate the constructive rôle of rising profits in a competitive economy, and give up the practice of whispering one thing in the luncheon rooms in the City and saying something different to their hon. Friends upstairs?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that three years is time enough for consideration of this particular reform, which is long overdue. I must say that if ever I venture into the luncheon rooms in the City I trip over almost every hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the Chancellor aware that a Royal Commission has examined the idea of a corporation tax? Is he not aware of the danger of rushing into this method of taxation without having given it proper thought? Would be consider referring this scheme to a high-ranking representative committee, for it to examine the implications and report to him before the Budget?

Mr. Callaghan: I am most anxious that this scheme should fit the needs of modern industrial society, and I think that after ten years of consideration there is really very little that is not known for and against the scheme. The reason for my making this statement today, giving a general outline of intentions, is to enable those who will be principally affected to make representations to the Board of Inland Revenue, which will be fully considered in advance of legislation being introduced next April.

Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members can only decide, after they have had a chance of looking at the details of the statement, whether anxiety was rather unnecessarily raised and confidence rather unnecessarily disturbed if his proposals are immoderate, if his proposals are out of line with existing practice elsewhere, and if we decide that his proposals are not such as could have been anticipated with a little intelligence?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that a great

deal of anxiety was caused because some people—I do not know who—did not read what I said in my Budget speech. If they had read what I then said, there would have been very little doubt in anyone's mind about what I intended.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about my statements, will he see that his right hon. and hon. Friends read again column 803 of HANSARD for 17th April, 1961, and column 971 of HANSARD of 9th April, 1962?

HOUSING (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on leasehold enfranchisement.
This is a subject which is causing concern to many people. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce legislation to enable householders with an original lease of more than 21 years to purchase the reversion of their leasehold interest. By giving this matter priority in their legislative plans they have shown the importance they attach to it.
But the provisions required raise important issues of policy and also some complex problems of a technical nature. For these reasons, and because of the other demands on parliamentary time, it will necessarily be some time before a Bill can be introduced.
Meanwhile, anxiety has been expressed by those living in houses where a long lease is due to expire. They fear that they may lose the opportunity of purchasing the freehold of their homes if the lease expires before the new legislation comes into force.
The Government sympathise with the anxieties of those whose leases are due to expire shortly; and I can give an assurance that in framing the new legislation the Government will ensure that whatever enfranchisement rights are conferred on a leaseholder whose lease is still running will similarly be conferred on a leaseholder whose lease expires after 8th December, 1964, and is still in occupation, on whatever terms, when the legislation comes into force.
This assurance cannot apply, of course, to those who have lost possession of the property before the Bill comes into force. But most occupying lessees are already entitled to remain in possession when their leases expire. They cannot be displaced save on specified grounds which are examined by the county court. It is, therefore, likely that when the new Bill comes into effect, a leaseholder whose lease has expired will still be living in his old house, though the terms of his tenure will be different.
What I have said does not apply to Scotland, where the land law is very different. The Government are not aware of any anxiety in connection with house property held on long-term leases in Scotland. But Scottish interests will be kept in mind while legislation for England and Wales is being prepared.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that we are grateful to him for having come to a decision and made a statement without having to be pushed into it, unlike some of his colleagues? Is he aware that the substance of his statement appears in this morning's Daily Express? If so, will he undertake to investigate how it is that that information became available to the Press before he made his statement?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this policy of government by statement, followed by a long interval for legislation, causes the maximum of difficulty for all concerned—[HoN. MEMBERS: "The landlords"] Why is it that, as this proposal featured prominently in the Labour Party's election manifesto, the Government had not prepared their ideas on how to implement it, but now have to spend a long time thinking out how it can be done?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman on some occasion seek to reconcile a decision to confer a right to freehold on people who have never previously had it with the policy of the Government, under the Development Commission proposal, to deprive the owners of new houses of freehold rights?

Mr. Crossman: I find that a little curmudgeonly. We are preparing legislation and in the meantime a great deal of anxiety has been expressed by people who own leases. I should have thought it reasonable to give this assurance to

those people. Although the right hon. Member may not appreciate it, I think that leaseholders will.
On the subject of delay, I am a little baffled. We are undertaking a major reform of rent control and directly that is over we shall deal with leasehold enfranchisement.

Mr. Abse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will be received with considerable relief and with thanks on the part of leaseholders in Wales? In particular, it will be received with thanks—despite the churlish reception by hon. Members opposite, who did nothing while they were in power—and with particular satisfaction by all leaseholders in Wales whose leases are falling in on Christmas Day.
Now that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that a leasehold Bill is to be brought in within a very short time, would it not be wiser for bad ground landlords to stop their present exploitation and to follow the example of good ground landlords by offering immediately reasonable and proper terms to tenants who will gladly accept them?

Mr. Crossman: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I also thank him for giving advice to landlords. I hope that they will take it.

Mr. Gower: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates that the promised legislation will be introduced in the present Session of Parliament?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I do anticipate that. We have in our Department two major Measures, one on rent control and this, which I anticipate will be coming in as soon as we finish with the first one.

Mr. Alan Williams: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there will be any premises or leaseholders who will not benefit from this proposed legislation and how the proposed legislation will apply to flats?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. There will be certain leaseholders who will not benefit, but I make one thing clear. Those not still in occupation will not benefit, but I emphasise that there will


be very few of them, because unless an order can be obtained by which they can be moved from their position they will still be in occupation when the law is passed.
The question of flats is a very difficult problem, one in which we have difficulties because of covenants to carry out repairs and the transfer of responsibility. This is one of the technical details which make it very difficult to draft an effective piece of law.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the Government's intention, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there are genuine difficulties about the attempt to forestall legislation by statements which do not cover the whole field? What is to be the position of people who go to the county court and are, nevertheless, evicted on grounds which will disappear when the Government have introduced the legislation? I beg the Government to realise that, although this may be a small number, there will be a considerable feeling of unfairness over the matter. Will he give an assurance that not only will this legislation be introduced as quickly as possible, but that the Government will give as much attention as possible to this group?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the difficulty of giving complete reassurance. That is why I drafted the statement in very careful language and had to exclude particular classes, one of which the right hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be received with considerable gratitude by many leaseholders in the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne who are being pressed by landlords at present to purchase the freehold reversions on their properties in the City at exorbitant prices, sometimes 50 to 100 times the, annual ground rent? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what machinery he will establish to enable fair prices to be charged when the freehold reversions take place?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot possibly anticipate the legislation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the first question I put to him, which he omitted to answer, namely, whether he will investigate the apparent leak of the subject matter of this statement and tell us how it happened?

Mr. Crossman: I am certainly prepared to answer. I did not see this leak. I am very surprised if the text of this careful statement was to be found intact in the Daily Express, which is not usually so careful to publish stories which lack any human interest and are so accurate.

MEMBER SWORN

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:—

John Arnold Farr, esquire, for Harborough.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL

As amended, considered.

New Clause. —(RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EXPEDITIOUS HEARING.)

(1) Section 17 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act 1920 (which provides for the making of rules of procedure for purposes of that Act, and extends the jurisdiction of county courts and sheriff courts in respect of proceedings under that Act) shall have effect as if references to that Act included references to this Act; and for the purposes of that section any proceedings for the suspension of an order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling to which this Act applies shall be deemed to be proceedings under this Act.

(2) Rules of procedure as aforesaid shall be made so as to provide that, if the court is satisfied of the urgency of the proceedings, proceedings for recovery of possession of premises to which this Act applies shall be heard (upon a two days' notice to the court and to the other parties to the proceedings) in any court within the circuit of the county court judge of the court in which the proceedings would otherwise have been heard and shall take precedence over other proceedings due for hearing.—[Sir J. Hobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of moving this Motion is to ask the Minister whether he has been kind enough to consider the point I raised in Committee about how questions of urgency ought to be dealt with. I am grateful for the information that he gave about the administrative arrangements which have been made in the ordinary course for dealing with the average case and for his announcement that it was hoped that possession cases in the county courts would normally take only 21 days from the time the application was made. Of course, the principal benefit will be in the undefended cases, but I do not want to go back over the ordinary run of cases. Arrangements have been made and I am sure it is right that they should be administrative arrangements, but that still leaves outstanding what I think is a lacuna.
We all know that it is necessary, under the Act, to proceed in the county court

for possession. There was a very rapid proceeding available before in the High Court. It was possible on short notice to get possession immediately in the High Court with almost no delay. If there is to be a discretion about granting possession, I certainly agree that it should be in the county court and not in the High Court. I should have thought it necessary to give to county court judges a power, if they are satisfied that there is a case of real urgency, to deal with the matter very expeditiously indeed.
The purpose of the new Clause is to ensure that where a county court judge is satisfied that circumstances of urgency exist it should be possible for possession to be sought on a two-day notice and for the hearing of that application to take precedence over all other business before the county court. As, at present, there must be at least 14 days' notice before the matter can come before the county court. That time cannot be abridged except by consent. Therefore, there is an imposed delay of at least 14 days and it is likely in very many instances to be substantially more because the county court judge is not available, or it is not possible to find an additional county court judge at once, or for a variety of other reasons.
Then there will be cases when it is essential that a difficult and awkward situation should be sorted out immediately. In Committee, I instanced the example of when there had been considerable violence between the parties, all living under the same roof, when it would obviously be essential that something should be done immediately. The Bill would prevent the landlord from doing anything—it would be a criminal offence if he took steps by way of self help—to remove the tenant. If he is to be powerless to deal with a situation which may require immediate action, there ought to be a procedure by which he can get a decision of the judge immediately.
There are the cases of holiday accommodation when sombody holds over and refuses to leave and when a series of holiday lettings depends upon someone getting out. There are other cases when, for instance, a Service family, or a family from the Commonwealth, is returning to this country and expecting to get possession of the premises, with the whole


family due to move in and the former tenant holding over. It obviously ought to be right for the family coming from overseas to move straight into that accommodation. If the present procedures of the county court have to be employed, there may be a delay of three weeks, and probably more, before it is possible to get possession.
It is only for these cases, which may be exceptional and not very numerous and which are certainly not ordinary, but may have exceptional urgency, for which there should be some special form of procedure. It is in order to ask the Minister what investigations he has been able to make to deal with these cases that I have moved the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I should have said, and I do so now because I do not think that it will affect the matter, that it is probably convenient with this to discuss the Scottish version, which is new Clause 4—"Provisions for procedure and expeditious hearing in Scotland".

Mr. N. R. Wylie: The Scottish new Clause makes provisions somewhat similar to those which my right hon. and learned Friend has suggested for England. I am concerned about the delay likely to result in the ordinary way in the sheriff courts in Scotland. It must be borne in mind that in Scotland the sheriff has not only a very much wider civil jurisdiction, but a wide criminal jurisdiction. The impact of these two jurisdictions, aggravated, as it were, by the recent application of legal aid in criminal causes, is creating a pressure of work in the sheriff courts greater than at any time before.
For example, I understand that in summary criminal trials, unless taking only a very short time, probably less than a forenoon, there is a delay of about four months in Edinburgh and five or six months in Glasgow and that the delay is increasing because of the effect of legal aid in criminal causes.
The Lord President of the Court of Session has no power within his own hand to make rules governing procedure and practice in the sheriff courts. The sheriff courts' rules are governed entirely by Statute and in some respects are sadly in need of reform. Apart from such powers as Parliament gives him, the

Lord President has no power to interfere in the procedure and practice of the sheriff courts. That is why the Scottish new Clause should be accepted. Otherwise, I can foresee a bottleneck in the work of the sheriff courts in handling legislation of this nature.

Mr. Graham Page: One rather technical matter arises on the new Clause. In Committee, the Minister gave an assurance that he could deal with the hastening of the hearing of proceedings of this kind in the county court by administrative action, by the rules of the court. I doubt whether, without Section 17 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act, 1920, implied into the Bill, the Lord Chancellor will have the power to make the necessary rules. Section 17 provides the rule-making power and I doubt whether there is any such power unless that Section is inserted into the Bill in some way.
It was found necessary to introduce it in the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958. If it was found necessary specifically to repeat it in that Act, it must be necessary to do so in the Bill. The proceedings under the Bill will be proceedings for a suspension of an order for possession. not strictly proceedings under the Rent Act. That is why specific mention of the rule-making power is necessary.
If the Government resist the new Clause, they will again be leaving the law in the air, as they have done in other instances in the Bill. I hope that it will be made perfectly clear that the Minister will take the power to ensure that the Lord Chancellor has the power to make the necessary rules so that the hearing of these cases may be speeded up.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): My advice to the House is that the new Clauses are unnecessary. I say that with a little reserve about Scotland, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with a subject on which, I fear, any guidance which I might give ought not to be accepted without considerable qualification.
The position in England is that without subsection (1) of the new Clause, the county court rules will apply and will be satisfactory to meet the situation which will arise with the operation of the Bill.


I hasten to say at once that should it prove that the procedure is not speedy enough to deal with cases which need expedition, the present rule-making powers will be adequate for enabling the Lord Chancellor, in conjunction with the Rule Committee, to deal with the situation. My advice is that the inclusion of a specific reference to the rule-making power of Section 17 of the 1920 Act is not necessary and that the general rule-making powers already provided will be adequate for meeting the situation which may arise if the present procedures prove to be tardy.
Perhaps I should remind the House that there are already methods of securing expedition under the present rules. For instance, under the existing County Court Rules, Order 16, Rule 1 provides that a judge or registrar may, on application by a party and without a hearing, transfer proceedings to another court, whether on the same or a different circuit, where the proceedings can be more conveniently or fairly heard. The relevant factor will be the urgency of the situation and the court would bear that in mind. I would expect courts to be prepared to exercise that power when the landlord made out a prima facie case for a speedy hearing when taking out a summons.
As was said by my right hon. Friend in Committee, the Lord Chancellor proposes, by administrative action, to direct the courts to place undefended possession actions in the list for the first sitting after the period of 14 days required between the taking out of the summons and the hearing has expired provided that the owner satisfies the appropriate officer of the court of the need for speed.
4.0 p.m.
Perhaps I can take up the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) about the possibility of the abridgement of the 14-day period between the taking out of the summons and the hearing. That period can be abridged on an application ex parte to the judge, and, of course, it can be abridged by consent. One would have thought that if one were in the presence of an urgent situation of the kind we are considering the judge would undoubtedly allow such application ex pane.
Finally, the House should remember that Section 36 of the County Courts Act,

1959, gives judges power to appoint additional courts. This power would be available where an owner makes out a prima facie case for a speedy hearing when he takes out his summons and there is no regular sitting of the court shortly after the expiration of the prescribed period—fourteen days or less. This power covers broadly the same ground as the proposed new Clause, which, in our view, is unnecessary. But, as I say, if experience is to the contrary, the matter will, after consideration by the Lord Chancellor and the Rule Committee, be regulated by the making of new rules.
I turn to the interesting suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington that there should be introduced a procedure to get possession on a two-day notice. Although procedure of that kind exists in Scotland, it does not exist here. At present, at any rate, we have no machinery for bringing on actions at such short notice, although I am bound to say that the Scottish procedure has its attractions and that it might be that at an appropriate time the possibility of introducing it in this country should be examined. However, as I have said, I think that the undertaking that new rules will be made if the delays prove excessive meets the situation.
In the situations of extreme urgency, such as the possibility of threats of breach of the peace, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington referred, the law would give other remedies—for instance by way of injunction. That would require the reference of the matter to the court, and from the point of view of the tenant, at any rate, it would protect him from the risk of the self-help procedure against which the whole essence of the Bill is directed.
The effect of the present county court rules is that it should be possible in the larger towns to bring really urgent cases before the court for hearing in less than 14 days. It seems to us that, in the circumstances, that is a reasonable position. After all, we must bear in mind that a tenant may, for instance, desire time to consider his defence to the proceedings, and it may not be practicable or easy for that to be done in the space of, say, 48 hours. If that kind of expedition were imposed, there is little doubt that if the defendant tenant found himself in difficulty an application for an


adjournment would be allowed. Therefore, there are limits to expedition. The urge for haste must not defeat the interests of justice.
In all the circumstances, new Clause No. 3, in our view, is unnecessary and should be resisted.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: Before the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies, I should like to urge on him the necessity of adopting some sort of procedure such as that suggested in the proposed new Clause in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and myself applicable to Scotland.
It is necessary for the House to realise exactly what the sheriff court in Scotland does. It is an all-purpose court. It has not only a wide civil jurisdiction, but a wide criminal jurisdiction analogous to that of the magistrates' court in England. That, of necessity, makes the sheriff court in a sizeable place very busy. But it has a very great deal of flexibility in arranging its affairs. In its criminal side, it deals in a very summary manner with the cases which come before it. For small debts, there exists a summary procedure without written proceedings which enables the court to come to a decision very quickly with the least possible delay and trouble.
This procedure has worked exceedingly well in connection with the tenancy of shops. An Act passed temporarily in 1949 and made permanent this year adapted this procedure for the purpose of protecting the tenants of shops from eviction. I see no reason why it should not apply to the tenancy of houses. That is virtually what my hon. Friend and I are suggesting in the new Clause—that the court be given power either by Parliament or by the Court of Session, which has power to legislate in these matters, to deal with these cases in an extremely summary way.
I suggest that this is more than necessary in view of the very great delays which take place in sheriff courts in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands instanced the long delay which occurs between the raising of a case and its coming to trial. But that is not the

end of it, because there may be a very long delay between the hearing of a case and the issue of a judgment.
I speak with knowledge on this matter, because I am a practising solicitor in a sheriff court. I should like to instance one case in my practice which occurred recently. It came to trial on 20th July and judgment was issued only last Friday. That was not in Glasgow, but in a busy country court. That is not unusual in a busy sheriff court. It may frequently happen. Very great hardship will be suffered, not only by landlords, but by tenants if there is a delay of that magnitude in hearing cases of this kind, because not only is the landlord denied possession of his house but the tenant is kept on tenterhooks for a very long time.
In these circumstances, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should consider this matter either on this stage or when the Bill goes to another place.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): The point made by the Attorney-General and emphasised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), concerning the summary provisions in the sheriff court, is valid. The difference between us is in the argument mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about the powers of the Court of Session in this matter.
I am sorry to tell the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands that he is not correct in his assumption that these powers are not already available. They are. I am told that this rule-making power already exists in Section 34(1)(a) and (d) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933. I do not want to trouble the House, but I am quite willing, if the hon. and learned Member desires, to read the long subsection if he is in doubt. I assure him, however, that my advice is that that is so and that the first part of his new Clause asking for this rule-making power is unnecessary because it is already in existence.

Mr. Wylie: If that is the case, of course I agree that there is no need to introduce the Clause; but that is news not only to me, but to the Lord President of the Court of Session. I have never heard of this before and, as far as I know, it has never ben acted upon. In


a matter of this nature, where a difficult crisis is likely to develop, this kind of provision should be evoked.
I do not want to make a speech, but it seems to me that one thing that the sheriff court does not like in Scotland is for the Lord President to interfere in its affairs. It would be only in exceptional circumstances that he would be obliged to do so. For that reason, I still suggest that it is desirable for these specific powers to be included in the Bill as they are to be found in the 1920 Act.

Dr. Mabon: I am always delighted to give news to the present Lord President. Nevertheless, I am advised that what I have stated is the fact. In case, however, there is dubiety, it would be useful to put it on record that Section 34(1) of the 1933 Act provides that
The Court of Session shall have power by Act of Sederunt—
(a) to regulate and prescribe the procedure and practice to be followed in any proceedings in the sheriff court or in execution or diligence following thereon and any matters incidental or relating to any such procedure or practice including (but without prejudice to the foregoing generality) the manner in which, the time within which, and the conditions on which any application to the sheriff court or anything required or authorised to be done in relation to any such proceedings shall or may be made or done".
Subsection (1,d) is as follows:
to modify, amend or repeal any enactments relating to matters with respect to which an Act of Sederunt is made under this section.
That being so, it still seems to us reasonable to say that it would be unnecessary to proceed with the first part of the new Clause.
The second part of the new Clause is also unnecessary because, as has been mentioned both by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and by the hon. and learned Member—although he does not seem to see the application of this to these removing cases—sheriff court procedure is already expeditious. The majority of removing cases are raised as applications for summary removing which can be used when the let is for less than a year.
I concede the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands in relation to delays in other matters, but, as to delays which may occur in summary removing supposing that we were to allow even a delay of seven days in the

case of a rural sheriffdom this would mean that the case would come before the court within nine days after the first notice was given. I am told that practically all these cases are disposed of at the first hearing of the court. In the busy Glasgow Sheriff Court, between 200 and 250 such cases have been handled in a week, thus meeting the point which the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West have rightly brought to our attention. I do not wish to reflect upon English procedure, but it is a reasonable point for us to make that we in Scotland have no need to worry about this.

Mr. Wylie: My hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what is happening. Is the hon. and learned Member intervening upon the speech of the Minister, or has the Minister sat down?

Mr. Wylie: I think that the Minister has sat down, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In that event, the hon. and learned Member requires leave to speak again, but not, I think, at this moment. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps we might return to England because, like the Attorney-General, and with even better reason, I should not like to embark upon the tumultuous seas of Scottish law. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for helping us on this point, which does not raise one of the major issues of principle on the Bill but is a very practical one.
The House will appreciate that the Bill abolishes the speedy High Court procedure as well as the also possibly speedy process of eviction without going to court. It is, therefore, important to be clear what is the possible speed of action through the county court in the exceptional case in which it is necessary. That there may be such cases the House will, I am sure, agree, and that is likely to be even more the case when we are dealing, as the Bill does, not only with unfurnished, but with furnished lettings.
I should like, therefore, to ask the Attorney-General one or two further questions. As I understood his reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington


(Sir J. Hobson), there are already adequate powers to make the necessary rules to secure a speedy procedure, and that this can be done substantially without Section 17, to which the new Clause refers.
I wonder, however, whether the Attorney-General can tell us what would be the quickest possible procedure in a case of real emergency. There can be such cases and I doubt whether, particularly in the case of a difficult character occupying a furnished room in somebody's house, procedure by injunction is a realistic way of proceeding. There may be cases where it is necessary in everybody's interest to get a very quick decision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that in such cases an ex parte application could be made to the county court judge. Without committing himself precisely, can the Attorney-General give us an idea of, in a case of real urgency of that sort, the quickest speed with which an order could be obtained?
I apologise for putting the next point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has dealt with it; the fault was mine in not following him. At an earlier stage, we had discussion of the problem which arises in country county courts where the judges proceed on circuit. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that it would be possible and was intended by rules to provide that these cases could be dealt with at any county court on the circuit that was convenient in point of time, or will the applicant be confined only to the county court which has jurisdiction in the area where the premises are situated? I shall be grateful if the Attorney-General can clarify these points and perhaps enable us to make progress.

The Attorney-General: The time within which an urgent case could come before the court would depend upon all the circumstances of the case and upon the nature of any defence which a tenant might make. That is not a very helpful answer so far, but I should have thought that in an urgent case the matter could certainly be dealt with in less than 14 days and that if there was a successful application for the abridgment of the period between the taking out of the

summons and the hearing to reduce it to as short a period as, say, two days, it would be possible in a really urgent case to have the matter dealt with within a week.
I feel sure that we can count upon the judges and the registrars who will be charged with this heavy duty to cooperate in every way they can in the emergency situation with which the Bill is intended to deal. One must bear in mind that without the Bill the parties would be confronted with the ordinary processes of delay which cause an interval to pass between the summons and the ultimate order in any event. Even High Court proceedings are not quite as expeditious as all that. That is the best estimate I can give on the question of the time factor.
As to the position on circuit, as I have said to the House, under the existing county court rules the judge or the registrar can, on application by a party without a hearing, transfer proceedings to another court whether or not it is on the same circuit. So that power exists already. If it is established by the party making the application that the proceedings can be more conveniently or fairly heard in another court on the problem of urgency and accessibility which would be relevant in considering such an application as that, then, as I said, there is also power in the judge to appoint additional courts, and that is being exercised, and has been exercised a good deal in recent years. So that is also a reserve power which would, I think, prevent the accumulation of these cases so as to cause regrettable delay.

Sir J. Hobson: In view of the undertaking given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the procedure should not turn out to be adequate for dealing with cases of urgency the matter would be given further consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1.—(RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.)

Mr. James Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from


"person" to the end of line 18 and to insert:
leaves no such widow or widower, then to such member of his family residing with him for not less than six months, immediately before that person's death as may be decided, in default of agreement, by the court".
This Amendment concerns the position where the tenant has died, the tenant has no husband or wife, but there are members of the family living on the premises. This Amendment has two sides to it. One is the question of how long those other members of the family have been living in the premises, whether it is six months or less; secondly, who should decide which member of the family then gets the tenancy.
When we discussed the six months' period in Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rejected the point. I think that I can fairly sum up his argument thus, that the six months' deadline created hard cases; someone might have given up his home and gone to live with the parent to nurse him through his illness and have been there for five and a half months and then failed to be entitled to the tenancy at the end of it; and that, in any case, this was much better settled under Clause 2 by the court when it considered the whole case.
The Amendment seeks to enable the court, in default of agreement, to lay down who has the right to be considered the tenant. The argument was that the amendment by the rent Act of 1933 made this a cause of abuse—that people came in just to nurse a member of their family, perhaps in the last few days before death, and then claimed the tenancy. I think that at that time the argument about the five and a half months was not used. This period of six months has, I think, been proved over the years to have value, and I hope that on reconsideration the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree to the Amendment.
Then there is the second barrel of this Amendment: who should decide who is the tenant? There may be several members of the family all living there. There must be one tenant; there cannot be a sort of joint tenancy between the family. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into this and come forward with some suitable Amendment. As he has not brought forward his own Amend-

ment, I hope that perhaps he will accept this.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in this Amendment for the two reasons which he has explained. The Amendment is a two-barrelled Amendment in that part of it which deals with the necessity to have a decision as to who is entitled to the rights under the Bill, the second point being whether it is necessary to retain the six months' rule which has been a feature of the Rent Acts since 1933.
As to the question of who is entitled to the rights under the Bill, the occupier is the person entitled. The occupier is described in this Clause in subsection (1,c). There can be more than one occupier—any member—I stress the word "any"—of the family residing with the previous tenant at the date of that tenant's death. Now, the occupier is given certain rights under the remainder of the Bill. Under this Clause, the occupier has the right to remain in possession and in residence till a court order is made for removing him. I do not think that there is really any objection to there being several occupiers. The owner might have to bring his case against all those who fell within the description of an occupier under subsection (1) of this Clause.
It is when one gets to Clause 2 that the difficulty arises. Under Clause 2(2) the judge has to decide on whom to impose certain conditions—as to payment of rent, for example. He therefore must decide who is the occupier. If there are several members of the family residing in the house of the former tenant, then the judge has to decide which one is entitled to the benefits and which one is subject to the duties which he can impose on the occupier under Clause 2(2). Then one comes to Clause 2(4). The judge is directed to consider whether the occupier has done something or failed to do something, or whether certain conditions apply to the occupier. He must decide, therefore, who is the occupier.
Therefore, we come back to the too vague, statement in Clause 1(1,c) which applies the term "occupier" to any


member of the family and gives no directions as to how the occupier under the Bill is to be decided.
As to the second point, with regard to the six months' rule, it was said in Committee that there were hard cases as a result of this rule, that relatives might have come to stay with the tenant within this six months' period prior to his death and might perhaps have given up their homes and hoped to reside in the controlled house for some time. But, if there have been these hard cases, no effort has been made by legislation since 1933 to correct them; as far as I know no Amendments for removing the six months' period have been tabled to any Rent Act since the 1933 Act; and if there really have been hard cases, and if this six months' rule is not really necessary, it is strange that it has not been amended in the course of the rent legislation since 1933.
Weighing the disadvantages and advantages of this six months' rule, there are far more cases, I would assert, in which the absence of the rule there would have been abuses by the tenant than there would be cases in which the members of the family would suffer hardship. This is an extension to the protection of the controlled tenant. It is an extension of the Rent Restriction Acts and not merely a holding position. I understand that the Bill is really intended as a holding exercise rather than as an amending Bill. But this provision is an effort to amend the law and remove a provision which it was found necessary to insert into the 1933 Act, no effort having been made until now to disturb it.
I therefore hope that the Government will consider this a little more thoroughly than it was considered in Committee and recognise the force of the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The fact that the provision is contained in the 1933 Act is not a logical reason for retaining it now. I much prefer to approach the matter from first principles. I heard nothing substantial in the arguments of the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) which convinced me that they have made an a priori case. There could in some circumstances be cases of people who have resided with

the former tenant for five and a half months and who will suffer severe hardship if they are not given the protection of the Bill.
Six months is suggested as the qualifying period for the protection of the Bill, but why not nine months, or one year, or even two years? The fact that no cases of hardship have been drawn to the attention of the hon. Member for Crosby under any of the previous Acts does not mean that none has occurred. I therefore hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will resist that part of the Amendment.
On the other hand, there is substance in the other argument. I have studied the Clause carefully to see how the courts would decide between the claims of two people who were both residing with the tenant at the time of his death. I notice that the Government have tabled a later Amendment to cover a point I raised in Committee. I will not refer to it now, because I should be out of order. I can envisage circumstances in which a blood relation of the former tenant had resided with him in the house at the same time as his natural wife had. It would be impossible, under the Bill in its present form, for the court to decide which of the two should be considered the occupant for the purposes of Clause 2.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to deal with this point, which has great validity, but will refuse the other point raised in the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): As I promised in Committee, when a similar Amendment was moved, we have given this matter very careful consideration and have consulted our lawyers, particularly as to whether the point about the successive occupier made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) could or should be dealt with in a Bill such as this.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that the Amendment deals with two points. I thought that we were generally agreed in Committee on the point about the six months' qualifying period. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) himself conceded, as he will see from HANSARD, if he has


forgotten it, that there was some substance in my argument about creating an anomaly in a matter such as this. We believe—we are advised that this is so—that there are cases where tenants come to the house, having given up their previous home, to nurse an aged father, for example, and are there for only two or three months. It is a matter for the judge to decide whether such persons should be evicted under the Bill.
This is a very important thing that I want to make clear. I am not here arguing so much about tenancy. The point is whether such a person should be evicted and whether the eviction order should be suspended for, say, 12 months. I hope that by now the whole country realises that in the not too distant future we shawl introduce a Bill which I hope will deal with some of the rather difficult problems mentioned in Committee. We believe that anomalies would be created by adopting a criterion of six months. We therefore believe that it would be wrong to write such a provision into the Bill. We believe that it is right to rely upon the judgment of the person who will hear the case.
I believe that there are cases of people who move in in the last few weeks to try to get the tenancy because they happen to know that the parent has not long to live. This would no doubt be argued by the owner and would be fairly and honestly put to the judge, who would then decide the case on its merits. We think that it would be wrong for Parliament to lay down in an eviction Bill an arbitrary rule that the tenant must have been there for six months. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that it would be wrong to write such a provision into the Bill. We reject that part of the Amendment.
I assure the House that we have carefully considered the whole question of the successive occupier. The hon. Member for Crosby raised this matter in Committee. He was given the real answer by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who said this:
If one wants to serve proceedings, one serves them on whom one alleges to be the occupier. He can sue for possession whoever is there asking for the protection of the Act. If the judge makes an order for possession against that person, he gets possession. But one does not have to decide competing claims

in order to decide whether he should get possession or not …
All that the Clause does is to give the court power to delay possession, if it thinks right, and denies the landlord the right to strong-arm his way in—a method of getting possession which I thought both sides of the Committee agreed was out of date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1964; Vol. 702, cc. 1499–1500.]
In a case where the deceased tenant has left no widow, but has left more than one member of his family who were residing with him at the time of his death—say, two daughters—the owner cannot enforce his right to possession without a county court order as long as either daughter remains in occupation and in residence. The owner, in applying to the court for an order for possession, would name both daughters as defendants to the proceedings.
I assure the House that we have considered this matter carefully. We believe that it would be cumbersome and unnecessary to provide machinery for selecting one person as the occupier for the purpose of the Bill in a case where more than one person qualifies.

Mr. Lubbock: The Bill does imply that the occupier is only one person. Subsection (2) says:
In this Act the occupier', in relation to any premises, means the person remaining in occupation …
I do not see how there can be more than one of them.

Mr. Mellish: On the best advice I have received, in a case where the owner is asking for possession it will be for the judge to decide the matter at the end of the day. He will take into account the evidence offered by the owner and by the defendants. I repeat that here we are arguing about whether persons should be evicted. We are not arguing about who should be the tenant or, in that sense, who the tenancy is to be given to. We are arguing about whether the house should now be vacated and handed over to the owner who is applying for the eviction of one or more persons.
For the reasons I have stated, we are unable to accept the Amendment. We believe that it is cumbersome and unnecessary. We recognise the intentions of those who have tabled the Amendment. I can only assure them that after


all the advice we have been given we believe that the Amendment is not necessary.

Sir J. Hobson: In Committee, we asked the Government to think again about the second leg of the Amendment, which we regard as of much the most importance. The Parliamentary Secretary gave an answer which would have been perfectly satisfactory if the Bill merely contained a Clause the effect of which was to prevent evictions. In that case it would have been right to say that no difficulty would arise from the fact that two or more persons were involved. But the Bill does much more. The county court judge may have to decide on what terms people are to remain in the landlord's premises. It does not leave it to the county court judge to decide who shall be the occupier.
This matter is settled by subsection (1,c). If it goes forward in this form and is allowed to bite upon two or more children who were living with the deceased tenant, because in the Clause we are talking about successors, there would by definition he no doubt that for the purposes of Clause 2 those two children would both be occupiers if there was no means of distinguishing which of them would succeed to the tenancy. Both would have been normally residing with the member of their family and they would, therefore, both be persons who remain in occupation after the tenancy. A county court judge, for the purposes of Section 2, would not have any description at all of whether one or the other is the person who was the occupant. He would have to treat both as occupiers. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 2, one would have to ask: what is the unfortunate landlord to do—that is what it comes to—about an offer of accommodation?
Suppose there are two children. One of them is the person who ought to have the tenancy. The older one has lived there all his life, and the other one has lived there only for the last month, and moved in just before the death of the tenant. The landlord offers a new tenancy to the permanently resident older child. He has not offered to one what he has offered to the other one. Under Clause 2, what the county court judge has to consider is whether he thinks that

both the occupiers have unreasonably refused the offer of the tenancy of premises or part of the premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent. If the landlord offers the tenancy to both and one accepts and the other refuses, what is to happen then?
What we are doing here is not only creating for former tenants a position as statutory "squatters"—because they are not statutory tenants; the Government have rejected that. This Clause as it is at present is imposing on a landlord not a single statutory squatter whom he knows and can identify, to whom he must make offers and with whom he must deal over the rent. We are creating a class of two or more statutory "squatters" for all the purposes of the Bill, including the whole of Clause 2. This is wrong. It is wrong to impose in premises a person with rights in those premises under the Statute and not to know which of them it is that can exercise those rights. I would have thought that it was necessary that, as between children, one of them should be selected by the county court judge as the person who should succeed and that then it should be left to that person to negotiate with the other members of the family as to how they shall use the premises and what shall be the position between themselves.
Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that there is a great deal of substance in this which will come down to practical problems when the parents die and the house is occupied by a series of individuals some of whom may or may not want to stay on, some of whom may want to make family arrangements between themselves, none of these matters being known to the landlord, who ought to have to deal with one individual, who can then deal with the other members of the family and make the necessary arrangements with the landlord. If they agree amongst themselves, there is no difficulty, because the one whom by consent is to have the statutory "squatter's" right can remain in possession of the premises. The law, for many purposes—trepass and other things—operates on possession and it is right that there should be a single possessor who should be looked to for all purposes, whatever arrangements he make make with the other members of the family.
I return to the six months' argument. I concede that whether there is a six months' period or no period, there will be anomalies. I submit to the House that there are likely to be far more anomalies unless there is some limitation of time than if there is no limitation of time at all. I have had cases in my constituency, one in particular, that caused considerable difficulty. In this case it was the wife of a person who had been sent to prison who got into a tenancy by having lived there for six months. There will be many cases where people slip into a house immediately before the death of termination or giving up of the occupation of the tenancy by the former tenant. We are dealing with successor rights. What we want to ensure is that those who should succeed under the Statute to the right to remain in the premises when they were never themselves the tenant are those who have been there substantially as members of the household.
4.45 p.m.
I should have thought that it was reasonable, and, in practice, it has been shown to be reasonable, under the Rent Act, to say that a person who has resided for a substantial period of time, whether it be six months or three months or any other period, before he should step in to succeed to rights which were never his at all, which he has never enjoyed, in any circumstances, and which did not belong to him. He ought not to be entitled to succeed, as against the landlord, to rights which he never had, merely because it so happens that he has been residing in the same house with

the person who had those rights. While I agree that it can be to some extent dealt with by county court judges, nevertheless one is putting the person who has been in residence for no period at all, with no claim at all, in exactly the same position, as a statutory right, as the former tenant, who was there by contract.

Mr. Lubbock: That is not quite right, because the court shall have regard to all the circumstances, and among other things they shall consider the length of time one is there.

Sir J. Hobson: Yes, but the court does that with the former tenant, too. The Bill is putting somebody who has resided there for no more than a day in precisely the same position as the former tenant, namely, subject to the decision of the court. Courts are incalculable and one is imposing upon landlords people who would not have had the right unless they had stepped in. While I would not, by itself, have regarded the six months period as vital, combined with the fact that one is putting in an undefined class who may not have resided there for any time at all, I would have regarded the Clause without this Amendment as unsatisfactory.

Mr. Mellish: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to address the House, he cannot unless he has the leave of the House. He has already spoken.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the word "family" in line 17, stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 214.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[4.47 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Albu, Austen
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Alldritt W. H.
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Delargy, Hugh


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Dell, Edmund


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Dempsey, James


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard
Diamond, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dodds, Norman


Barnett, Joel
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter


Baxter, William
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Driberg, Tom


Beaney, Alan
Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edelman, Maurice


Bence, Cyril
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bessell, Peter
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Binns, John
Conlan, Bernard
Ennals, David


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ensor, David


Blackburn, P.
Crosland, Anthony
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fernyhough, E.


Boston, T. G.
Dalyell, Tam
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)


Bowden. Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boyden, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)




Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Floud, Bernard
McCann, J.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K.(St.Pancras, N.)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Freeson, Reginald
McInnes, James
Rowland, Christopher


Galpern, Sir Myer
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Sheldon, Robert


Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Garrow, A.
MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Gourlay, Harry
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Grey, Charles
MacMillan, Malcolm
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Skeffington, Arthur


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Small, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mapp, Charles
Solomons, Henry


Hannan, William
Marsh, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Maxwell, Robert
Steele, Thomas


Hattersley, Ray
Mellish, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hayman, F. H.
Mendelson, J. J.
Stonehouse, John


Hazell, Bert
Mikardo, Ian
Stones, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stross, Sir Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Molloy, William
Swain, Thomas


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Monslow, Walter
Swingler, Stephen


Holman, Percy
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Symonds, J. B.


Horner, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Taverne, Dick


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hoy, James
Newens, Stan
Thornton, Ernest


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Hector(Aberdeen, N.)
Norwood, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Oakes, Gordon
Tuck, Raphael


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Ogden, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian
Varley, Eric G.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orme, Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wallace, George


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will
Warbey, William


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham S.)
Padley, Walter
Watkins, Tudor


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Weitzman, David


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Paget, R. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
white, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parkin, B. T.
Whitlock, William


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Leadbitter, Ted
Popplewell, Ernest
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Ledger, Ron
Prentice, R. E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lomas, Kenneth
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Lubbock, Eric
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Howie and Mr. Harper.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berkeley, Humphry
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Biffen, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)


Astor, John
Bingham, R. M.
Campbell, Gordon


Atkins, Humphrey
Black, Sir Cyril
Channon, H. P. G.


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.


Baker, W. H. K.
Box, Donald
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Braine, Bernard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Cooke, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper, A. E.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill







Cordle, John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Percival, Ian


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hopkins, Alan
Peyton, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hornby, Richard
Pitt, Dame Edith


Crowder, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Pounder, Rafton


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Curran, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Jennings, J. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Roots, William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, Walter H.
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Forrest, George
MacArthur, Ian
Temple John M.


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maginnis, John E.
Tiley Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Sir John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gibson-Watt, David
Marlowe, Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. R.H.


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glover Sir Douglas
Mathew Robert
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus
Vickers Dame Joan


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David (High Peak)


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grant-Ferris, R.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walters, Dennis


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Miscampbell, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Webster, David


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Morgan, W. G.
Whitelaw, William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Murton, Oscar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey
Wise, A. R.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hawkins, Paul
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley
Wylie, N. R.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P.S.
Younger, Hn. George


Hendry, Forbes
Oaborn, John (Hallam)



Higgins, Terence L.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hiley, Joseph
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. More and Mr. Ian Fraser.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Mr. W. T. Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "family" and to insert "household".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be to the convenience of the House if we also took Amendment No. 3, in line 17, to leave out "family" and to insert "household other than servants".

Mr. Williams: It is, of course, true that in the Bill the Government seek to carry on the same terminology as they used in previous rent Acts, and I understand that the Government's intention here is not to amend the law, but merely

to have a standstill Measure while awaiting a new, fuller and more comprehensive landlord and tenant Act. This carry-on from previous legislation is one of the ways in which in the past considerable hardship has been inflicted on people who have been left in possession of property, who are not members of the former tenant's family but are as closely related as a member of that family could have been.
5.0 p.m.
The House will know that the court is obliged strictly to construe the language in use in Acts. By construction in the past, and one presumes by construction


in future in applying the Bill when it becomes an Act, the court will exclude from the protection that is proposed to be given under the Act persons who are not strictly members of the occupier's family.
One thinks, for instance, of people who live in a house with a tenant. They may have been sharing that household with the tenant over a long period. They are bound with bonds of considerable affection to the tenant. They may have given their lives to the care of the former tenant but, not being members of that tenant's family by blood or by law, they are unable to continue to remain in occupation of the premises, and they will not be helped by this Bill.
One thinks of a man and woman who have lived together as though they were husband and wife. One thinks of a family composed of such an irregular union having a child, that child being illegitimate and therefore having no legal right. There are people who live together in companionship. One thinks of frequent cases of two ladies who have been teaching at the same school. They become close friends and go to live together in rented property. After they have been living together for many years the one who happens to be the actual tenant dies and the person who is left, having shared that home for a greater part of her life, has no protection.
In the past this has resulted in a great deal of hardship for people in that position. What we would hope is that, without attempting to bind the Government's hand in future legislation, there should be some provision for these situations. It can easily be done. As this is a short standstill Measure, no hardship can result to the landlord, whereas hardship can result at present to the person who is seeking to remain in possession. It appears to those who have joined with me in putting the Amendment clown that this is an Amendment which in humanity the Government might easily and properly accept.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) put forward the Amendment with the greatest sincerity. His speech indicated that, but as he spoke I wondered how much more impracticable he could get as he went on.

The Government have said that they are anxious to speed up the hearing of these actions, to allow people to get to the court quickly and have cases heard if that is necessary. It is necessary to go to court to obtain an order under Clause 1 to get the directions of the court under Clause 2 as to future rent to be paid and so on.
If the occupier is to be any member of the household, it means that the owner, in order to go to court, must serve every member of the household with proceedings before any action can start at all. He has to serve not only every adult member of the household, but every infant member, even a child in arms who is occupying the premises. Therefore, he has to go through the procedure of appointing a guardian ad litem to all the infants in the house.
This was stupid enough as a result of the previous Amendment which required him to appoint a guardian ad litem for those infants to defend actions brought against them. The suggestion now is that this nonsense, this impossible procedure, should be extended to every member of the house-hold without legal definition of what a household may be. The household may be crammed tight with 20 or more people, all under the age of 21, and the unfortunate owner has to appoint a guardian al litem for every one of them. The Bill is becoming more and more a farce as we go on.

Mr. David Weitzman: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) has made a powerful case in favour of the Amendment. I agree that there may be difficulties about service but, just as one can serve members of the family, one can serve members of a household, and the words of the second Amendment clearly are
household other than servants.
I have in mind pitiful cases, and I am sure that hon. Members have come across them in their own constituencies, of men and women who have been living together as man and wife for many years.
What is to happen to a woman in that position? Is she not entitled to be protected? The object of the Amendment


is to protect a woman in those circumstances. If the House recognises that it would be unfortunate if a woman in that position were not to be protected, it is right that an Amendment of this kind should be accepted. As has been said, this is a short Measure which is intended to protect people through a short period. Nevertheless, injustice may arise during that period. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I also hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I find it difficult to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He has mentioned this hypothetical babies' home containing 20 or 30 infants under 21, but I hope it will not be suggested that it should be made easier for landlords to evict infants than to evict adults. This was an argument unworthy of the hon. Member. He can do better than that. I am glad that the Amendment received support from the benches opposite, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): We discussed this matter in Committee when my hon. Friend, my joint half, expressed his great sympathy with the idea behind it. I found no difficulty in principle about it. The difficulties are entirely practical.
It is perfectly true that we want to draw the net as wide as possible to collect people and get them under the protection of the court to avoid eviction. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for extending the definition of people who are protected, beyond the family, to cover the kind of people who would be covered by the household, excluding, as we probably would all agree, servants.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, there is the case of the unmarried wife who was living with the tenant who dies. There is also perhaps the more important case, less tinged with emotion, of two schoolmistresses who have lived together for many years sharing the house. One of them dies and the other, as I understand it, has no protection. That is a difficult case and one which I should like to deal with.
I would have thought—this is where I venture to differ from my hon. and learned

Friend with some trepidation—that the illegitimate children of the union were part of the family living under the protection of the father and would be regarded as part of his family and that would bring them under protection. Therefore, there is some argument for saying that if the children are protected the mother of the children who is living with them and looking after them, if not protected, at any rate is not likely to find herself evicted to leave the children under someone else's care. I would have thought that probably the mother of the children who were illegitimate was protected.
My difficulty in this Bill, which is a holding Measure, is to avoid some of the other difficulties that may arise. For example, there is the problem of what happens where a deserted wife is left in the house and the husband has ceased to reside in the house although he remains the tenant and pays the rent. In what circumstances is she protected? The more I look at it the more it seems to me that there are difficulties about this which make it unwise to rush in with this proposal. I do not challenge it on its merits.
My feeling is that in a holding Bill, if I may use that phrase again without embarrassment, we probably are wise to stick to the classes defined in the Rent Act which have been before the courts. But I would certainly not only promise to, but would want to, look very carefully at the position when our main piece of legislation comes before us. I recognise very much the difficulties of this problem.

Mr. Weitzman: If my hon. Friend recognises that there is merit in this, is he content that injustice should continue even for a short period?

Mr. MacColl: The difficulty is that there are other injustices which might be left if we do this. That is why I am hesitant to do it. It is not that I do not want to do it. I feel that it would cause injustices to some people who were extremely worthy but who would not be protected while other people who were less worthy would be protected. If I did not feel that I would be in favour of it. My own feeling at the moment, subject to discussion of this matter this afternoon, is that the wise thing would would be to leave the position as it is at the moment and do something about it when we come to the major Bill. I say


that not in any criticism, because I thoroughly appreciate what my hon. Friends have said. They have made an impressive case and my difficulties are purely practical.

5.15 p.m.

Sir J. Hobson: I find myself in complete agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary on this point. I quite understand the points that were made by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North (Mr. Weitzman) who spoke for the widening of the provision. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that those cases are probably within the law already. As I understand it, there is authority of the court that a woman who had lived for 12 years with a tenant as his mistress and had two children by him was included and was a member of his family. The court has indicated, admittedly only obiter, that an illegitimate child, if a guardian ad litem is appointed for this purpose, is a member of the family. I find it difficult to see how an illegitimate child cannot be a member of the family of the deceased tenant.

Mr. W. T. Williams: I think I am wrong about that and I do not pursue it.

Sir J. Hobson: There is the case of the mother of the illegitimate children who has been there for a shorter period than 12 years. The law may be in some doubt about that, but I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that more than likely if she is looking after the children she will have protection. Therefore, one is left only with an extension of rights that are intended to protect tenants temporarily to everyone within the tenant's household.
While it may include some for whom one may feel a great deal of sympathy, like school teachers who have lived together for a long period, it would include a tremendous number of other people who are wholly unmeritorious. Any person, friend or companion who had lived in the household for any time, however short, would be a member of the household and would have to be served and come before the court and the whole thing would have to be considered. Any

paying guest who was a member of the household would have to be served, any au pair girl who was a member of the household would come within the Bill, any lodger living as a member of the family would come within the Bill.
Servants, of course, ought to be out, but au pair girls who are not servants but who live in a household, or foreigners who come to learn a language and live in a household, would all be in, and also, of course, any temporary mistress who had only been there for a month or two would also be in because she would be a member of the household, and any guest within any form of relationship who happened to be living as a member of the household would be covered. All these people would become occupiers on the death of the tenant and would have to be served and go before the court. While I appreciate that it is intended to take in a narrow line beyond members of the family, the Amendment would extend it so widely that an enormous additional category of people would have to be hauled before the court with no prospect that they would be allowed to remain in possession. For these reasons, I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary in the view he takes.

Mr. W. T. Williams: rose—

Mr Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must ask leave of the House to speak again even if he wishes to withdraw the Amendment

Mr. W. T. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert:
(4) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that the owner believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.
This matter arose in discussion in Committee and the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) moved an Amendment which included a good deal more than the particular point with which our Amendment deals. It included, at the end, that it should not be a recovering of possession within the meaning of the criminal part of the Bill if the owner took possession in the reasonable belief


that the occupier had previously given up possesion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the case of a person who has left, but nobody quite knows whether he has actually gone or not until someone can go into the house and see what the situation is.
In the discussion, I said that if there were a loophole as regards the flitting tenant we should try to move an Amendment to stop it. This Amendment deals with that fairly narrow point. It provides that, if someone is charged with the offence of enforcing possession without a court order, it shall be a good defence that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the occupier had ceased to reside in the premises. I hope that this will appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a reasonable attempt to meet the point. We think that it covers it succinctly and effectively.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "ceased" to insert "to occupy or".
First, I thank the Government for tabling their Amendment, which to some extent meets the point I raised, which, though a small one, may be of great importance to people who are accused of a criminal offence. I am sorry that they have not dealt with the other point about an individual who by fraud, fear or intimidation obtains the tenant's consent to recovery of possession. This is something which may cause trouble, and I was anxious that it should be covered, but the Government have not dealt with it.
As I understand it, if a landlord by fraud, fear or intimidation obtains the consent of the tenant, he will not have committed any criminal offence. He will not have enforced his right to possession. He will have gone into possession by consent, and no criminal offence will have been committed. The tenant will not be able to recover possession, and the sole remedy remaining to him will be an action for intimidation or fraud against the landlord. Although I see the difficulties, I am sorry that this matter has not been covered.
The Amendment to the Government's Amendment arises in this way. Under the Bill, it is not a criminal offence to

seek to enforce one's right to possession against anyone if he is not both occupier and resident. If a person is not both occupier and resident, he is not an occupier for the purposes of the Bill. There will not be many, but there may well be cases of a person being resident but not in occupation because he is resident in the premises as agent for another person. The occupation is in a third party, someone who has two houses, who allows the person who was formerly the tenant to remain in possession of his premises. The former tenant is resident in the premises but is not himself the occupier of them. The likelihood of such cases is not great, but, for neatness and completeness, it would have been desirable to make plain that the special defence here to be provided ought to bite in both instances, both where someone is the occupier but not resident and where someone is resident but not the occupier.

Mr. MacColl: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again on the main Question—I suppose that I may speak as of right on the Amendment—perhaps I may cover both of them.
First, on the point about residence, it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced residence into the discussion. We were anxious to be helpful and we accepted the point which he made. We do not want to confuse the whole interpretation of the Bill by getting involved in highly metaphysical arguments about when one can reside without occupying or occupy without residing.
We are here dealing with the landlord who goes into a house to see whether the tenant is still there or has flitted. This is plain common sense. The test is whether he is residing there or not. If we must have the difficulty of having the two words in, I think that the best course is to stick to the test of whether or not he is residing there. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think that we have dealt with the main point and be willing not to press his Amendment.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman regretted that we had not dealt with his other point about obtaining consent by force or fraud. I remember moving


a most impressive new Clause on the Housing Bill last year which, unfortunately, was out of order—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How did the hon. Gentleman manage to move it if it was out of order?

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman will discover that I am very adroit at it. I only hope that I have no more experience of having to do it for many years. It was an impressive piece of drafting, although it was out of order on that Bill.
We shall look at the whole problem when we review the rent Acts as a whole, but my immediate view is that, if the court were to have before it someone who, in fact, had obtained consent from a tenant by threats or by fraud, it would brush aside questions about consent and would deal with the matter on its merits. Not long ago, I came across the case of a landlord who, so it was alleged—this was only one side of the story—had got the tenant to sign a document said to be an agreement for another house but which was a consent to withdraw an application to the rent tribunal. As I say, if that kind of fraud were to go on, I think that the court would brush aside questions about consent and deal with the case on its merits. A broad criminal charge of this sort—
to enforce … his right to recover possession"—
would cover any question of fraud or intimidation. If not, and if we find that something more is required, we shall be very happy to introduce it later.
I hope that the House will accept our Amendment and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that it will improve the Bill and he need not press his Amendment to it.

Sir J. Hobson: I do not wish to press my Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. On Report, every hon. and right hon. Member must ask the leave of the House before he may speak again unless he is speaking to a new matter.

Sir J. Hobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it right that the

mover of an Amendment must ask leave to ask the permission of the House to withdraw it? That is all I was doing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, when we are at the Report stage.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I want more clarification of the Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We still have before us the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: Has it not been withdrawn, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I would like some clarification of the Government Amendment. We must recognise differences that exist between Scotland and England—for instance, as between the sheriff court and the county court. Would it be a defence, under this provision, to prove that the owner had believed, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the occupier had ceased to reside in his premises if the owner happened to catch the occupier out when the latter was on a lengthy holiday? I would be happy to learn that this would not be considered sufficient defence. People do go for fairly lengthy holidays, even from rented property, and I hope that families in such a situation would not have to fear that, on their return, they would be without a home.

Mr. MacColl: By leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to my hon. Friend. The key words are "reasonable cause to believe" and, surely, if the court felt that the landlord had waited round the corner until the tenant disappeared with his bags to go on holiday and had then shot in to get possession of the house, the landlord would get a rough time. I do not think there is danger of such a situation arising. Of course, if the tenant went away for, say, six months' holiday —although hon. Members often do not


understand that there are people who get six months' holiday—that might well be thought a reasonable ground for believing that the tenant had gone.

Mr. Lubbock: There are cases where people go hop-picking or potato-picking for periods longer than the normal annual holiday of two or three weeks.

Mr. MacColl: Anyone who knows hop-pickers also knows that they go out to the fields at a certain time of year. If an owner marched into a house to get possession while the tenant was hop-picking I do not think he would get a very good reception in court, I think that the courts can be trusted to interpret reasonable behaviour. One cannot define it. One must leave it to the sense of the courts. That is what the courts are for.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "section" and to insert "Act".
This is a drafting Amendment related to a later Amendment which I shall move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF ORDER FOR POSSESSION.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 20, after second "premises", to insert:
or of other suitable accommodation".
This is a very simple Amendment, and an obvious one. In Clause 2(4) the court is directed to have regard
… to all the circumstances and, in particular …
to those which are set out in the following paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). In paragraph (b) the court is directed to take into consideration whether the occupier
… has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy of the premises or part of the premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent;
It may be that the owner is able to offer the occupier other accommodation which is perfectly suitable and it would be right to direct the court therefore to give all consideration to that and not only to an offer of a tenancy in the premises of which he has been tenant.

Mr. Julian Snow: Who is to judge what is suitable? I had a case recently in my constituency where alternative accommodation was offered.

Sir Eric Errington: The judge would decide.

Mr. Snow: If the judge had to decide, I suppose that means that he would be asked to inspect the alternative accommodation. I do not believe that this would be either a good thing or a practical proposition. If it were to be left to the owner, however, to submit evidence on the alternative accommodation's suitability, then that would be a one-sided proposition. If the Amendment means anything at all, it means that some form of independent arbitration should be provided to decide whether the accommodation offered as an alternative is suitable or not.

Mr. Weitzman: I hope the House will reject the Amendment. The grounds set out in subsection (4) are simple and concise and cover all sorts of circumstances which should weigh with the court in regard to this matter. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is surely forgetting that, first of all, in subsection (4) there are the words
… shall have regard to all the circumstances.…
so that the judge must have regard to a matter of this kind. Again, in subsection (4,b) there are the words
whether he has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy of the premises or part of the premises …
and then, in addition, subsection (4,c) says:
whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation.
The Amendment is, therefore, quite unnecessary. One can imagine a judge having in front of him evidence that the tenant has refused a proper offer of suitable accommodation and coming to the conclusion that the tenant has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. If the Amendment were accepted, all it would do would be to encumber subsection (4). It is quite unnecessary.

Mr. John M. Temple: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on what I


regard as a very reasonable and practical Amendment. I rebut the argument of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Snow) on the question of the judge having to inspect the alternative accommodation. It is implicit in the Bill already that the judge will have to do just this with regard to the part of the premises which he might consider as suitable for the occupier. If the judge does not see the premises, how can he judge whether part of them would be suitable as alternative accommodation? I believe that this Amendment is perfectly sensible. It will permit mobility of labour, for one thing that the Bill may do is freeze labour in one set of accommodation. I hope that the Government will think again about the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: I begin with an apology to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). We and the House in Committee owe him an apology for the way his Amendment was treated last Thursday. He was under the impression, I think, that it had been accepted and was then bewildered to find out that this was not so. He did not even make a speech then but merely moved the Amendment formally and left it at that. No doubt that was why it has been called again today.
The Government have had time to look again at the proposal, as has my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who has put the point much more effectively than I can. The words which the hon. Gentleman is asking us to add are not necessary. The judge will have to take account of all the circumstances. We believe that he will have regard to any case argued by the owner that in the house there were other premises available to him. He will listen to the counter argument by the tenant and then having heard all the evidence, he will come to a decision.
My right hon. Friend's intention was to bring in a simple Bill, one which laymen can understand. With great respect to the lawyers on both sides of the House, they have been trying to make the Bill more complicated. As I think the hon. Member for Crosby will agree, the examples that we gave were general examples of the kind of

things which a judge would take into account, and it was always understood that there would be many other factors that he would consider, too.
It is not possible to write in everything which every lawyer thinks a judge ought to take into account. We rest our case on the simple approach to this matter. We believe that all judges will carefully consider and weigh the evidence placed before them and decide whether suitable accommodation had been offered to the tenant, and then come to a decision. For that reason—and here I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North—we regard the Amendment, in spite of what happened in Committee, as unnecessary.

Sir J. Hobson: The Joint Parliamentry Secretary pretends to be such an innocent character that I cannot allow him to get away with that. He knows that these matters are difficult, and he knows that when these matters come to be litigated between parties in court it is essential that the court should be given a clear indication of the intentions of Parliament.
I concede that not only lawyers but many others could think of enormous numbers of additions to the reasons stated in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). The oddity of the drafting of this subsection is that if it had said that the court would consider all the circumstances and do whatever was reasonable there would have been a good deal of force for saying that there was no need to put anything else at all.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that there were lawyers on both sides of the House who thought that we were wrong to put in paragraphs (a) to (d).

Sir J. Hobson: That is the point that I am making. I am saying that one way in which this could have been dealt with satisfactorily was to leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and say that the judge should do whatever was reasonable. But, having put them in, any judge will read them and he will think that they mean something. Paragraphs (a) to (d) will become first-class reasons to which the judge will initially devote his mind. He will say to himself, "Parliament has regarded


these questions as of overriding importance, and all other questions which Parliament has not put in I may consider, but they are of secondary importance, and they are secondary reasons". We are therefore in the difficulty that it is no good saying, "The judge can consider everything. We do not need to add this at all. It does not matter whether we put it in or not". We have put words in, and the judge will read what is there, and say, "These are important and anything else is less important".
It is on that basis that I suggest that it is just as important to see whether the ex-tenant has unreasonably refused not only the offer of the tenancy of the premises he occupies or part of those premises but also of any other suitable accommodation.

Mr. Weitzman: The Amendment seeks to put in the words
or of other suitable accommodation
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at paragraph (c) he will appreciate that no judge is going to say that a tenant has not failed to make a reasonable effort to obtain other suitable accommodation if he refuses such an offer.

Sir J. Hobson: With respect, there is a complete difference. Paragraph (c) deals with a completely different situation, namely, whether the ex-tenant has made efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. This is looking to his position whether he has made any attempt to approach an estate agent or take any other steps. The refusal of an offer, which is dealt with in paragraph (b), is different from making reasonable efforts. On the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the whole of paragraph (b) is unnecessary because the tenant would not have made any reasonable efforts if he had refused the offer of the tenancy of the premises or part of them. The argument is the same if we are to have paragraph (b), and I have always thought that there were strong arguments for saying that we should not have anything except that the judge does what is reasonable, and therefore hand everything over to the county court judges and let them do what they like. But if we are to stand on paragraphs (a) to (d), and if we have in paragraph (b) "unreasonable refusal", and in paragraph (c) "reasonable efforts", we should not distinguish, as

judges will when they consider the present words, between the offer of the actual premises and the offer of other premises.
5.45 p.m.
For those reasons I ask the Government to reconsider whether they should not put in what is sensible, namely, that if a tenant ought to have held against him that he has refused to accept tenancy of the particular premises, he ought equally and in parity to have held against him a refusal to accept equally suitable accommodation which may be next door.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that we do not want to make more work for lawyers, but perhaps I might put one practical point to him. I have taken little part in these debates on the legal side.
Whatever the learned judge may think or read into the Bill, what is important is how the tenant will see it. The more clarity that we can put into a Clause of this sort from a tenant's point of view, the less he will trouble the courts. I therefore suggest that if a tenant can be shown this, if he can be offered alternative accommodation and told what his position is, and that he will be considered unreasonable if he does not accept it, he will not have his hopes raised falsely and go through the whole procedure of the courts. That is the practical ground on which I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Manuel: We are dealing with an order for possession. I, too, do not support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). It appears to me that in so far as paragraphs (a) to (d) apply, they provide all the protection that is needed for the owner. We must not forget that this Clause applies to Scotland, too. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in charge of housing, is present. Subsection (5) reads:
In the application of this section to Scotland—
(a) for any reference to an order for possession there shall be substituted a reference to a degree of removing or warrant of ejection …
We know that these are sheriff court matters, but I think we ought to have


some explanation of how this will apply in Scotland, and especially paragraph (b) which reads:
for the reference to mesne profits there shall be substituted a reference to damages arising from unlawful possession.
I think that we ought to have a little more clarity about the period between two dates when there has been unlawful possession.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is outside the Amendment which we are discussing.

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that subsection (5) brings sheriff courts into the same category as courts in England under subsection (4)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is talking about parts of the Clause which are not covered by the Amendment. We are discussing an Amendment which seeks to add the words
or of other suitable accommodation".

Mr. Manuel: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would draw to your attention the fact that previous speakers, notably the right hon, and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), mentioned various categories listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Since paragraphs (a) and (b) may have application in Scotland I respectfully request your reconsideration of the advice that you have received in this matter. You are ruling Scotland altogether out of consideration in connection with an order for possession.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. Member must accept the Chair's Ruling that the points that he is making do not come within the Amendment which is under discussion.

Mr. Manuel: Then where do they come? This is shocking.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Shut up.

Mr. Manuel: I will shut you up.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this matter. A number of lawyers from both sides of the House

have taken part in the debate, not in order to create more work for themselves. We are trying to avoid making more work for lawyers in the future. The Government keep saying that these words are unnecessary. That may be strictly true, but if they go some small way towards making the classification clearer—and the words in themselves are not objectionable —the Parliamentary Secretary, in the name of common sense, should allow them to go in. There are only three words.
I have taken part in arguments before county court judges, and I can tell the House that they do not always have to inspect premises. They cannot always be expected to do so. But if a judge is in any doubt he will always do so. These simple words will go a little way towards helping to clarify the position.

Sir E. Errington: I add my appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary's, on the same grounds as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), namely, that it is well for those people who read a document to be clear about the conditions that apply, particularly—and I emphasise the word because "particular" is contained in line 15—in case of an offer of a tenancy of premises or part of premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent.
These are very limiting words. They limit the refusal of an offer purely and simply to the premises or part of the premises. It should be made clear to everybody, in order to ensure that fairness is done both to landlord and tenant, that there is another alternative besides the premises, namely, "other suitable accommodation." As they stand, those words might in certain cases cause a tenant to think that he would not have to go to other suitable premises. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks about the matter again I am sure that he will come to the conclusion that it is better to make this clear rather than to disappoint those people who do not correctly understand the exact meaning of paragraph (b).

Mr. Mellish: If I may speak again, by leave of the House—it is interesting that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) now holds the view that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) should be struck out—

Sir J. Hobson: No—I said that I thought that there was a strong argument that that would be one way to proceed, but that we had, in fact, proceeded by way of a different method. I did not say whether I supported one method or the other.

Mr. Mellish: These paragraphs, which have been constantly referred to, are all designed to help landlords. They all tilt against tenants. My right hon. Friend will shortly be moving yet a further addition to safeguard other interests. As far as possible we have resisted attempts to expand this subsection further. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) was very courteous in his approach to the matter. I can assure him that we did not throw the proposal out because we did not happen to like it. We took advice on it, and we were told that these words are quite unnecessary, and that it is hardly likely that any judge considering a case on its merits would not take into account the question whether the owner of the property has made an offer of suitable accommodation in the premises. If the owner can show that he has it is almost certain that the judge will come down in favour of the owner.
We feel that in the circumstances these words are unnecessary. We have decided not to include them, and thereby clutter up the Bill even further. I cannot understand why so much is made of this issue. I am quite bewildered. I am shocked to find that so many hon. Members opposite do not believe that judges will take all these circumstances into account and give a fair decision.

Sir E. Errington: When suitable alternative accommodation—other than the tenancy of the premises or part of the premises—is available, how will it be made clear to the tenant that he can benefit by it?

Mr. Mellish: If a tenant is taken to a county court and the owner is able to show that he made the tenant an offer of other suitable premises in that house, and that the tenant has refused the offer, I ask the hon. Member to

believe that the judge will give an order in favour of the owner. Where such an offer has been made it will be argued in court whether the tenant has accepted it, or, if not, for what reason he has not done so. It is a matter for the judge to decide.

Sir E. Errington: I do not understand the view of the Parliamentary Secretary. This is a different question. I am referring not to accommodation in the same house but to alternative accommodation outside the house.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member must have missed paragraph (c).

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We can well understand the Parliamentary Secretary's statement made a few moments ago that he is bewildered. But this is a simple point. I am a little surprised, especially after the legal argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), and the explanation of the practical aspects given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
They agree that this is an important matter for the court to consider. Indeed, the contrary is unarguable. Nevertheless, they are unwilling to consider it as a first-class reason, together with the four reasons enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (d). This seems to be a wholly unreasonable attitude to adopt. I am sorry that we have had to spend so much time on the matter. The Government would have done better to accept the Amendment. In the circumstances I can only advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to register in the Lobby not only our view of the merits of the case but our disapproval of the Government's attitude.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 268.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[5.58 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Astor, John
Batsford, Brian


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, W. H. K.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Balniel, Lord
Berkeley, Humphry


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Barlow, Sir John
Berry, Hn. Anthony




Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bingham, R. M.
Hamilton, Marques of (Fermanagh)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Box, Donald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pym, Francis


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, Gordon
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Roots, William


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Crowder, F. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Curran, Charles
Kilfedder, James A.
Speir, Sir Rupert


Currie, G. B. H.
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot John E.


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Dean, Paul
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Temple John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher Mrs. Margaret


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R.H.


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fell, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Walder, David (High Peak)


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Sir John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Marlowe, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Forrest, George
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest



Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mathew, Robert
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Gammans, Lady
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wise, A. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Gresham-Cooke, R.
Morgan, W. G.
Younger, Hn. George


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. MacArthur and




Mr. R. W. Elliott.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Joel
Blackburn, F.


Albu, Austen
Baxter, William
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H.


Alldritt, W. H.
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Boston, T. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, Cyril
Bowden. Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Boyden, James


Atkinson, Norman
Bessell, Peter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Binns, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)







Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest G.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Popplewell, Ernest


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger, George (Goole)
Probert, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Rankin, John


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Redhead, Edward


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Richard, Ivor


Crosland, Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Rowland, Christopher


Davies, I for(Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Dell, Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Dempsey, James
Longbottom, Charles
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Diamond, John
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Driberg, Tom
McCann, J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dunn, James A.
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
McInnes, James
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Solomons, Henry


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Spriggs, Leslie


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas


Ennals, David
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S' land)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Ensor, David
McLeavy, Frank
Stonehouse, John


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm
Stones, William


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Manuel, Archie
Symonds, J. B.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marsh, Richard
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Floud, Bernard
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Maxwell, Robert
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, J. J.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Tomney, Frank


Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Garrow, A.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Wallace, George


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murray, Albert
Warbey, William


Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold
Watkins, Tudor


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan
Weitzman, David


Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Harper, Joseph
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Hattersley, Ray
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hayman, F. H.
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hazell, Bert
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Orme, Stanley
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hill, J. (Midlothin)
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Padley, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Holman, Percy
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Horner, John
Paget, R. T
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Zilliacus, K.


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Pargiter, G. A.



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Howie and Mr. Grey.

The Amendment has been tabled to redeem a pledge which I gave in Committee. I stated then that I would write in a special assurance to farmers about the position of their industry. Hon. Members will recall that I outlined the aims of the Bill—to protect two classes of people who might potentially be threatened with eviction during the process of extending adequate rent control permanently. Those two classes are tenants of decontrolled property and agricultural labourers in tied cottages, both of whom were specifically promised by the Labour Party during the General Election that they would have an extension of security of tenure.

The National Farmers' Union recently pointed out that if in Clause I agriculture was singled out for special mention it was only fair, in this series of guidance, that we should add a fifth guidance specifically relating to agriculture. I accepted that point of view and we decided to take that step.

I should make it clear that the Amendment does not have the full agreement of the N.F.U., nor, for that matter, of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. It does not because it limits, to some extent, the security which they wanted. The N.F.U. made it clear in a circular which some hon. members received today that while it would rather have nothing about agriculture in the Bill, it would reconcile itself to something, and interest was shown in the Opposition's proposed Amendment in line 2 of my Amendment.

I need not say more about this, except to comment that I believe that the words in the Amendment adequately do what we promised, and that they make it clear to the county courts that in the case of a tied cottage consideration must be given to the special conditions applying to employment in the agricultural industry. The only question flowing from what I have said is whether one should accept that Amendment to my Amendment. It would be a mistake to do that,

because it would mean extending the principal much further. If that Amendment were accepted the Clause would extend to all kinds of people outside the agricultural industry. To do that would be a mistake, although when we come to the long-term Measure we will bear this matter seriously in mind.

I advise hon. Members that the question of whether we should consider taking all service tenancies together, and not single out agriculture, is being considered in the formulation of our long-term Measure. I therefore ask the House to accept the Amendment and to reject the Amendment to it in view of the possibility of dealing with these things in long-term legislation.

The second Amendment to my Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "seriously", cannot, I suggest, be accepted, because this is a Bill to protect people from eviction, and it should be made clear that it is only when things are seriously prejudiced that one should consider the extreme course. It is not true to say that wherever it might be said that there was any effect on agriculture one ought to have the right to evict a worker from a tied cottage. Thus, to keep the balance right, the word "seriously" should remain in the Bill, and I advise my hon. Friends to oppose any attempt to remove it.

Question, That "and" stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. William Roots: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from "tenancy" to "for" in line 5 and to insert:
in consequence of his employment and he has ceased to be in that employment, the premises are reasonably required".
I thank the Minister for initially attempting to redeem the pledge which he gave in Committee and, as he put it, to write in a special assurance for


farmers. I hope that when he has considered the matter further he will realise that his words, far from amounting to a special or at any rate unbiassed and reasonable assurance to farmers, have gone far too far the other way, for when one considers the wording of subsection (4) one realises the difficulties involved.
The Minister described the various subsections of the Clause as giving forms of guidance to county court judges. He so described the Amendment standing in his name. He clearly envisages that county court judges will pay particular attention to the wording of the subsection, which is directed specifically to farm service tenants. As he said, when one considers this matter one must recognise that these are the only service tenants included in the Bill.
We have argued about that and have passed the Clause which brings them within the Bill. I do not propose to reopen that argument. Nevertheless, having brought them within the Bill and having allegedly written in a special assurance to farmers, one finds on considering the words of this special assurance that they are far from being an assurance such as is given to other landlords in subsection (4). Indeed, to use the metaphor the Minister used, the pendulum has been swung a great deal against the farmer because subsection (4,b) states:
whether he has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy of the premises or part of the premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent.
Subsection (c) states:
whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation …
It is striking that this test of reasonableness has been the one chosen by the Government to be the test which the county court judge should employ. In those terms I cannot seek more forceful advocacy than the words used by both Parliamentary Secretaries. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), was at great pains a few moments ago to stress that the judge's view should and could be relied upon—a proposition from which I should not wish to depart—and, even more striking, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), said somewhat earlier that the court could be trusted to interpret the word "reasonable".
Surely, when one looks at the whole tenor of these subsections, the Amendment to the Amendment clearly fulfils that test. It accords precisely with the nature of the other categories, (a) to (d), and it would read:
… whether, in a case where the premises were occupied by the tenant under the former tenancy"—
that is, the agricultural tenancy—
in consequence of his employment and he has ceased to be in that employment, the premises are reasonably required. …
So the farmer has to prove that he reasonably requires the accommodation. We do not introduce a fresh test of "seriously prejudiced" but adopt the same test of whether the premises are reasonably required. We include the further test contained in the Minister's Amendment that the farmer has to show that the premises are required for occupation by
… a person employed or to be employed by the owner …
I accept the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment. If one is seeking to write in an assurance for the farmers, to produce a test that is quite different from the other test to which the county court judge has to direct his attention, in quite different terms, and involving an inquiry into the running of the farm, which may be quite undefinable, cannot really be regarded as giving any assurance to the farmers, or placing them where I suggest they have the right to be placed, which is on an equal footing as to what they have to show and prove in order to get possession.
The fact is that even if the Amendment that I am moving is accepted, the farmers have to prove the further condition that the premises are required for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner, so they have a stiffer case to meet. I cannot help feeling that when the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretaries consider the matter further, they will decide that the terms of our Amendment satisfy subsection (4), and satisfy justice to the farmer and to the service tenant whom, as they have said, they seek to protect. In those circumstances, it would be quite wrong to introduce some other and more complicated test when a simple test is to hand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman


will bear in mind the fact that the Amendment I move will produce a fairer result than that standing in his name.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: In moving his Amendment, the Minister showed us all a green brief that has come today from the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union, but I want to make it perfectly clear that the Lincolnshire branch of the N.F.U., representing the principal farming county, believes quite firmly that that headquarters memorandum is entirely unsatisfactory, and that the compromise is not good enough. I would remind the Minister that in Lincolnshire we have the steel town of Scunthorpe, and there is a special problem as a result, because there are regular cases every year of farm workers occupying tied cottages and then going to work in the steel industry.
The Lincolnshire branch's real objection to the Minister's Amendment springs from the fact that it makes a complete nonsense of the Contracts of Employment Act. I am sure that every hon. Member welcomes the way in which contracts are becoming widely used and accepted throughout the agricultural industry. If an agreement has been properly executed, with one month's notice to quit on either side, and the person signing it must have understood quite clearly what it was about, and understood the condition of his occupancy, surely no judge could deem that contract to be invalid and give the person concerned a period of six months to stay on in the cottage. That would be to impose a delay of great disadvantage to the whole agricultural industry.
I do not see why, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) has said already, it should be on the agricultural industry to have to prove that the house is needed for the efficient management of agricultural land, and go through all the business of taking the matter to court, and having an inquiry into methods and ways of running a farm. As has been said, it would not be difficult in that case for the other side to produce a system whereby someone could come from the village, using transport, while the person in the cottage could be given security of tenure. We realise that the

Minister has tried to meet some of our objections, but his attempt is still not good enough.

Mr. Bert Hazell: This provision is something that agricultural workers would have wished to see left out, because the National Union of Agricultural Workers recognises that it will make the position even more difficult for the farm worker occupying a cottage than for a normal tenant. We were always led to believe that it was the Government's intention that there should be parity of freedom between the ordinary tenant and the tenant of the agricultural cottage. We think that the balance now will be weighted against farm workers, although we recognise the reason that has prompted the Minister to include this wording. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary earlier said that Government leaders had bent over backwards to favour the landlords, but we think that here they have more than bent over backwards in trying to meet the wishes of the farmers.
I mentioned during the Second Reading debate the hardship suffered by farm workers. Some hon. Members opposite then rather decried my views but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has emphasised the very reason for greater protection being given to the farm worker than has hitherto been the case. He said that when a man in a farm cottage gets a month's notice to leave—for whatever cause—he should be out of the cottage at the end of that time whether or not there is anywhere else for him to go. I presume that the hon. Member would maintain that there should be a summary eviction in that event.
The farm worker's occupancy of his tied cottage is different from that of other workers in other spheres of industry, who often have tied cottages. There are far more evictions of farm workers than is general elsewhere. This provision means that the farm worker will still be in a rather different category from any other tenant. We appreciate the reason for this, and are not opposing it, but I hope that in the more permanent legislation that is to be introduced, the very legitimate claims of the farm workers will be given greater consideration than has been possible in


getting this Bill, with all its wide implications, through the House as soon as possible.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I must confess, following the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), that I hope the Minister will not believe what he said about the need to incorporate further protection in a later Bill. The Minister by his Amendment has fulfilled the promise he gave in Committee and has redressed the balance to a certain extent compared with what before the Amendment was an extremely badly and unfairly weighted Clause.
I have remarked before that I regret that there are no Ministers from the Department of Agriculture on the Government Front Bench. I do no more than draw attention to the fact that there has been no representative of the Ministry present during discussion of these Clauses.

Mr. Mellish: That is not so.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am talking about the Clauses which refer to agriculture.

Mr. Mellish: In order to get the record straight, I should say that when the Amendments concerning agricultural workers were put forward the Minister of Agriculture sat with us on this Bench.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, indeed, but he went away again after about five minutes and there is no one from the Ministry here now.
We agree that this is an acceptable subsection that goes a certain way to redress the balance for the farmer. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) to leave out the word "seriously". I noticed that when he was talking about that Amendment the Minister said that it would spring the balance too far and that the real purpose was to give adequate rent control permanently in future for farm tenants. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of doing away completely with the tied cottage system.

Mr. Crossman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am glad to see him shaking his head. We must realise that in this matter the farmer will be in an extremely difficult position. He may need the tied cottage as a matter of urgency when things go wrong on the farm. He may be unable to get a worker to come on the farm without such accommodation, and he may need the cottage for him quickly. Therefore, the word "seriously" could well be left out. As the right hon. Gentleman is so fond of relying on the discretion of judges, I should have thought that if the word were left out he could be certain that the judge would use his discretion and the weighting would be exactly fair between the farmer and the tenant agricultural worker in this case.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has redeemed his promise and to a certain extent has redressed the balance, yet I hope he will go further and accept the Amendment to delete the word "seriously".

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to discuss with the Amendment which has been moved the Amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), to leave out the word "seriously". I am sorry that the Minister has said that he will not accept it. I hope he will reconsider that decision and have second thoughts about it for the omission of this word would improve the purpose he has in mind.
The Government Amendment is designed to direct the attention of the county court judge to the peculiar circumstances operating in agriculture. Tied cottages are quite different from any other let property within the ambit of the Bill in that in all other types the landlord is presumed to desire and derive some investment income from his property, whereas the agricultural tied cottage is part of the equipment of agriculture. The cottage is wholly uneconomic but it is necessary.
I think there is a difference of interpretation between us. This Amendment does not require a separate treatment of the agricultural position by the judge. The Government Amendment does not exclude consideration of all other circumstances including the special factors in


paragraphs (a) to (d). We could omit "seriously" for three reasons. First, it makes the agricultural factor relatively hard to bring in. Since the "tied cottage" is unlike any other property covered by the Bill, it is desirable for the judge to consider the special circumstances of an agricultural nature. There are quite a number which do not obtain in other properties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) mentioned, there is the strong probability that it will be a term of a man's employment, included in the written contract of service—though I am advised that it might not, in law, be part of the contract of service but may be included as a separate contract in the document—that he will have possession of the cottage linked to and coterminous with his employment. Therefore, it ought to be in the judge's mind that the man undertook that obligation when taking his job and entering the cottage.
There is also the very real fear which farmers have of a man living in a tied cottage taking a job outside agriculture. That is something which the judge is not required to consider in other parts of the Measure, although it is very relevant to the particular circumstances of the agricultural tied cottage. Then there is the interest, not only of the employer or owner, but of the prospective occupier, the man who is trying to come to a job but who might be frustrated simply because he cannot get the house or any house near the job.
Another consideration which the judge should have in mind in the case of service occupancies if he is allowing any period of delay is the need—as the N.F.U. recommended in its note received this morning—to give some indication of mesne profits which should be available to the employer in respect of the time when he loses the use of the cottage after the worker has left his employment.
All these are matters which ought to be taken into consideration. The implication of the Government Amendment is that the agricultural factor need not be considered unless the efficient management of land would be seriously prejudiced.

Mr. Crossman: It is, of course, in the discretion of the county court judge to raise the rent or lower it or fix it at its present level. Clearly there is discretion, and this was left for the specific reason that if a man was living in a house where there was no rent paid and now there is to be a rent there would be room in the discretion to put that in. The judge is given full discretion to do that under the Bill.

Mr. Hill: I see that, but the big distinction is that agricultural cottages are not meant to be economic, and the farmer is hoping that a cottage may be some inducement to a man to work for him.
How could the word "seriously" be interpreted? If it is left in the Amendment county court judges will assume that Parliament intended something by that word. I think there would be difficulty in interpretation. The only other well-known context in which this word comes is, I think, in workmen's compensation where the phrase, "serious and wilful misconduct" is used. That, I believe, has given the courts much trouble in interpretation. The courts decide rightly that in such cases the word "seriously" would have to be interpreted in the light of the facts of each case. That cannot be so here because most of the important facts have not happened as in compensation cases but lie in the future.
It is impossible to know in advance whether the loss of the use of a cottage and the consequent shortage of a man will result in serious prejudice or injury to efficient management. In cases where there is only one employee and one cottage, it is virtually certain that the prejudice will be serious. In many cases the degree of prejudice must depend on unpredictable factors lying in the future—for example, the relative shortage of labour, because farms do not carry spare labour nowadays. Labour is always short. Therefore, the absence of one man may cause serious prejudice if there are arrears of work. Again, whether the prejudice is serious may depend on weather conditions alone. It may be governed by the subsequent sickness of other workers. The farmer may, because he has not possession of the cottage, miss the ideal replacement.
All that can be shown in most cases are the factors which may prejudice efficient management, although to what degree only time and chance will show. Therefore it would be more satisfactory if the county court judge were specifically directed to take into account any prejudice to efficient management and so consider all the agricultural circumstances along with all the other circumstances.
A Labour Government should take their stand on that. After all, the Government as a whole, not merely the Minister of Agriculture, have emphasised their support for the 1947 Act, Section 1 of which speaks about the necessity for maintaining a stable and efficient agriculture. Section 1 also mentions providing proper remuneration and living conditions for agricultural workers. There is the balance. I should have thought that all Ministers would want to take account, and have judges take account, of any prejudice to efficient management in industry, and particularly in our greatest industry. Otherwise the impression will be given, as has happened before, that a Labour Government, despite general statements of support for agriculture, usually fall down in practice and on matters of detail through haste, lack of understanding or lack of consultation.
I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture would not want to give that impression. I do not think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would. Therefore, I hope that at a later stage the right hon. Gentleman will, after reconsidering the matter, accept my Amendment to his Amendment, because it would in no way prejudice the fullest and fairest consideration of the occupier's case. It would avoid implied restriction on the judge's discretion, which should be as free as possible. It would assist the Minister in his declared intention to ensure that the needs of agriculture are always taken into account.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: The Liberal Party welcomes the Minister's Amendment, which has been tabled in response to an Amendment tabled by myself and by my hon. Friends which the Minister accepted in principle in Committee. We think that the Government Amendment covers the points we raised in Committee. To delete

the word "seriously" would raise grave issues, because I personally could easily prove that some prejudice to efficient management would arise whenever a man left his employer but still occupied a cottage. The word "seriously" can be easily defined. It is obvious from speeches made by members of the Conservative Opposition that a serious situation would arise if a farmer had to milk his cows himself. Not only the hardship which would arise to the man but also the cruelty to the cows arising from such an action would undoubtedly be taken into account by the judge. It would constitute a reason.
Seriously, we think that the sensible Amendment tabled by the Minister covers the points we raised. We support the Government's Amendment and not the Amendments to it.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Temple: Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), I must declare an interest. I am a farmer. I am capable in an emergency of milking my own cows. I support the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), because he made a serious point. I believe that the word "seriously" is unnecessary. I will give an additional reason to those advanced by my hon. Friend. Today agriculture is an extremely efficient and scientific industry. I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has had the opportunity of going to the Smithfield Show this week. If he has not, I hope that he will go and convince himself of the science which is necessary to run an agricultural holding today.
In view of the scientific approach which farmers must now make to their vocation, I believe that it is necessary to have a well-trained labour force and if a member of the staff leaves it is necessary to be able to replace him reasonably quickly. If the word "seriously" is deleted, it will have the effect of enabling farmers to replace an agricultural worker rather more speedily and satisfactorily, because today I believe that the only circumstances in which district councils will rehouse an agricultural worker are when a court order has been obtained saying that the worker must leave his premises.
If the system is to work as it has hitherto, the court order will have to be


obtained fairly quickly. I believe that it will be difficult to prove that the management of a holding has been seriously affected in a very short while, because "seriously affected" means that it has been seriously affected over a period. I therefore hope very much that the Minister, with his personal knowledge of agriculture—I do not quite know whether he is capable of milking his own cows, but I know that he has a great personal interest in agriculture—will think again about the Amendment to his Amendment.

Sir J. Hobson: I support the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and suggest to the House that it is too restricting to leave in the word "seriously".
I turn to the main Amendment to the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. It is all very well to have a discussion about agriculture, but that is not the only industry. We are glad to have had the Minister of Agriculture with us for the last five minutes. He has missed all the debate on agriculture. Perhaps he will now listen to the points which affect the direction which is now being given to county court judges.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope that hon. Members opposite will not continue with this discourtesy. I have made arrangements. I have had some important meetings. The Opposition spokesman on agriculture well appreciates the position. I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to consult him.

Sir J. Hobson: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has been at important meetings, but he is not the only Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture. He has deputies. He is well supported. If he cannot be here, one or other of his deputies could be here.
Why should this principle apply to agriculture only? In our last debate there was a good deal of discussion about railway employees and railway occupants. If the principle is to be that the efficiency of farms is important and should be taken into account by county court judges, equally the necessity of providing accommodation for those who are to take over the jobs of railway employees should be considered.

Mr. Crossman: This is something which the right hon. Gentleman has said twice before. I made a specific statement that I would write in something about agriculture. I said this to the N.F.U., which has welcomed this qualification about agriculture. The issue is whether service tenancies in general should be in the Bill or whether there should be a specific assurance on agriculture. I said I would do that and I have kept my promise.

Sir J. Hobson: This is nothing to do with service tenancies. It covers all in agriculture, whether service occupancies or tenancies. The Amendment is intended to emphasise that while we accept and are grateful for the fact that that principle has been applied to agriculture, it ought equally to be applied to all forms of industry where somebody is let premises in consequence of his employment and where he has gone into those premises because they were necessary as part of his employment. That principle ought to apply not only to agriculture but to the other circumstances.
May I give a few instances? School caretakers and stokers, for instance, frequently have to live on the premises. It is important that they should do so, and it is important, when the county court judge considers whether or not he should make an order for possession, that he should take into account that somebody else has to get that job, that the premises were originally let to the person in consequence of his employment, that that person has ceased to be in that employment and that somebody else now has to live in those premises for that work. I have already mentioned railway employees; we debated them at length on the last occasion and several questions, from the Government benches, from the Liberal representatives and from this side of the House, were asked about why railway employees were being treated differently.
Factory workers and night watchmen, in many cases, have to live on premises, and some factories have processes just as important as agriculture. It is just as important that some people in other industries than agriculture should live on the premises. Hospital staffs, managers of public houses and caretakers of flats are all people to whom the premises were originally let to enable them to do a job. When they have


ceased to be in that employment, it is surely right that the county court judge should Lake into consideration the fact that a new employee must live in those premises.
I cannot understand why the Minister should be upset, because when he has done it for agriculture, the same principle should apply to large numbers of other industries, where it is of immense importance that the fact that the premises are needed for the purposes of the job and that another person has to go into those premises for the same job should be taken into account by the county court judge.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: It would appear that the Minister of Housing is under the impression that one can find alternative accommodation for a farm worker just by looking to some local council. In fact, if a farm worker is looking for alternative accommodation and if he is to remain a farm worker, it would not be within the area, he would have to move a considerable distance. If such a farm worker has been taking care of a milking herd, the effect on the milk production if that man remains with the herd when he is no longer living on the same farm must be very serious. If the Minister of Agriculture is interested in seeing that milk production maintained, perhaps he would like to explain to the Minister of Housing what the position is.

Mr. Crossman: The Minister knows.

Mr. Godman Irvine: I should like to make one point in relation to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), because he says that this is something which is wanted by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. I would like to ask him if he has looked at the advertisements in any agricultural paper, either those by the people looking for jobs in agriculture, or by farmers looking for workers. I do not think he would be able to find one single advertisement which said: "No house required".
If there is a house required, how does he imagine this difficulty is to be surmounted by the people looking for work? He is only looking at one side of the picture when he says that there are many people being evicted and that he has a lot of evidence about it. I am a farmer and have lived in the country for most of my life and I have never seen any of these incidents taking place and I have never had any of them brought to my attention. If this is what goes on in Norfolk I can only say that things are different in East Sussex. I would certainly ask him to have a look at the advertisements in agricultural papers before he says that workers do not want cottages with their work.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 200.

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[6.57 p.m.]


Abse, Leo
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Diamond, John


Albu, Austen
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Dodds, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Doig, Peter


Alldritt, W. H.
Buchanan, Richard
Driberg, Tom


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunnett, Jack


Bacon, Miss Alice
Carmichael, Neil
Edelman, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)


Barnett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Baxter, William
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Conlan, Bernard
Ennals, David


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ensor, David


Bence, Cyril
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crosland, Anthony
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)


Binns, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Fernyhough, E.


Bishop, E. S.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Darling, George
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)


Boardman, H.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boston, T. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bowden. Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Floud, Bernard


Boyden, James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Delargy, Hugh
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dempsey, James
Ford, Ben




Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael
Rose, Paul B.


Galpern, Sir Myer
McInnes, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowland, Christopher


Garrow, A.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Sheldon, Robert


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
McLeavy, Frank
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ginsburg, David
MacMillan, Malcolm
Short, Rt. Hn. E.(N'c'tle-on Tyne, C.)


Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Grey, Charles
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Manuel, Archie
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hale, Leslie
Mapp, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Roy
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hannan, William
Mellish, Robert
Small, William


Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian


Hattersley, Ray
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Solomons, Henry


Hayman, F. H.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William
Steele, Thomas


Heffer, Eric S.
Monslow, Walter
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Stonehouse, John


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stones, William


Hill, J. (Midlothin)
Mulley, Rt Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Holman, Percy
Neal, Harold
Swain, Thomas


Horner, John
Newens, Stan
Swingler, Stephen


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Symonds, J. B.


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Norwood, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Howie, W.
Oakes, Gordon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Orbach, Maurice
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, Will
Tuck, Raphael


Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, Walter
Urwin, T. W.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Varley Eric G.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Wallace George


Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W Ham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.
Warbey William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, Tudor


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Weitzman, David


Kelley, Richard
Pen'land, Norman
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Popplewell, Ernest
Whitlock, William


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, R. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Leadbitter, Ted
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ledger, Ron
Rankin, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, Edward
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rees, Merlyn
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lipton, Marcus
Richard, Ivor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lubbock, Eric
Robertson, John (Pais'ey)



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K.(St.Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McBride, Neil
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. McCann and


MacColl, James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mrs. Harriet Slater




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Box, Donald
Cooke, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Cooper, A. E.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Costain, A. P.


Astor, John
Braine, Bernard
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Awdry, Daniel
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Baker, W. H. K.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Crowder, F. P.


Balniel, Lord
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Barlow, Sir John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Curran, Charles


Batsford, Brain
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Currie, G. B. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dalkeith, Earl of


Berkeley, Humphry
Buck, Antony
Dance, James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Bingham, R. M.
Campbell, Gordon
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Channon, H. P. G.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas







Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Pym, Francis


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kilfedder, James A.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Elliott,R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Errington, Sir Eric
Lambton, Viscount
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Forrest, George
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn(Wirral)
Roots, William


Gardner, Edward
Loveys, Walter H.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Sharples, Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Goodhew, Victor
Maitland, Sir John
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Gower, Raymond
Marlowe, Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grant, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Gresham-Cooke, R.
Mathew, Robert
Summers, Sir Spencer


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus
Talbot, John E.


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Miscampbell, Norman
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David
Walder, David (High Peak)


Hay, John
Monro, Hector
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morgan, W. G.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wall, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Murton, Oscar
Walters, Dennis


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Weatherill, Bernard


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Webster, David


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornby, Richard
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wise, A. R.


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Peel, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Percival, Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John
Wylie, N. R.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


Jennings, J. C.
Pitt, Dame Edith



Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. More.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior, J. M. L.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 27, at the end to insert:
(5) Where in proceedings for the recovery of possession of any premises the court makes an order for possession but suspends the execution of the order by virtue of subsection (1) of this section it shall make no order for costs, unless it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the owner or of the occupier, that there are special reasons for making such an order.
The purpose of the Bill is to protect tenants from eviction and to give guidance to the courts, particularly in regard to the suspension of orders for eviction, and there are two matters which the courts have to consider. The first is the question of the order for possession, and this is a point on which we have spent a considerable time. There is also the order for costs which the courts

have to consider when these orders for possession come before them. This is a very important matter on which we have so far not touched. An earlier Amendment on costs was moved formally but was not accepted.
It seems unreasonable, when a tenant is brought before the courts and gains security of his tenancy for a limited period, that he should then find himself in considerable financial difficulty because costs are awarded against him. While the court has a discretion, the costs are normally awarded to the successful party, and in practice only in exceptional cases does the court exercise its decision the other way. This may bear very heavily upon occupiers, even though the court may suspend the order for possession. We had hoped that the courts would exercise their discretion generously in favour of occupiers who are suffering considerable hardship by the threat of


eviction. The object of my Amendment is to cover this aspect of the Bill and to tighten it up a little in the matter of costs.
My attention was first drawn to the hardship that may be involved in this question of costs when we were discussing the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1958, which was introduced to try to relieve some of the acute hardship caused by the Rent Act.
A similar Amendment to this one was introduced in the discussion on that Bill, and at that time I had had representations made to me by a constituent who complained bitterly that he had been before the courts. The landlord's order for possession had been suspended for three months, but the tenant had found himself faced with a bill of £20 costs which he had to pay. This seemed to me to be quite wrong. The Minister at that time proposed an Amendment on lines similar to the one which I now move, but subsequently he had second thoughts and that Amendment was omitted in that Act.
It seems to me, therefore, that if there are hon. Members who think that this Amendment is not necessary and that the court's discretion need not be tampered with in any way, the experience which we had with that earlier legislation points to the fact that there is need for something of this kind to ensure that justice is done to tenants.
One of the difficulties of a debate on a Bill of this kind is that we get bogged down in technical details and we are apt to forget the human purpose behind the Bill. We are apt to forget that the majority of tenants who become involved in cases of the kind covered by the Bill are people of very limited means. Indeed, they would not be in this position if they had money to obtain some other kind of accommodation. We are also apt to forget that a great many of the landlords who take them to court in this way are real rogues and villains. It is quite wrong that when these landlords employ solicitors, and, possibly, counsel, and run up a considerable bill of costs the tenant should be expected to pay it.
I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted. It is not only necessary in order to give additional protection to

the tenants but it is eminently reasonable and it is a matter of equity that something on these lines should be written into the Bill. This may not be perfect wording, but I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will consider that it will fulfil a need, and that it is part of the object of introducing the Bill that something like the Amendment should be incorporated.
The two following Amendments, Nos. 15 and 16, in lines 31 and 34, were thought necessary to bring the Bill into line for Scotland. I hope, therefore, that all three Amendments will be accepted in order to cover an important point which, so far, has not been touched.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) reminds me that I should have said that clearly it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss the Amendments in line 31, leave out "and", and in line 34, at end insert:
and
(c) for the reference to costs, there shall be substituted a reference to expenses".

Mr. Graham Page: I suppose that any hon. Member practising in the courts ought to declare an interest in connection with an Amendment which deals with costs and, therefore, I declare an interest at once. As the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) said, the Amendment is very much in the wording of a Section in the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958. As so many times in Committee and in today's debate, the Government have rejected Amendments from this side of the House endeavouring to produce logical points from the 1958 Act, I hope that the Government will be consistent and decline to accept this one as well.
7.15 p.m.
It is not correct, as the hon. Lady said, that in possession cases costs follow the event. They do not in the county court. The county court judge has complete discretion under Order 47 of the county court rules, and he certainly does not exercise that discretion to order costs in favour of a successful litigant in a possession case. The principle adopted in possession cases is that the landlord who is claiming possession is trying to persuade the court to exercise discretion in his favour rather than to establish


legal rights. Therefore, it does not follow that if he is successful the tenant is at fault or, if the tenant is successful in his defence, the landlord is at fault. The decision may be based on the judge's discretion in connection with hardship or reasonableness and it is frequently the practice that the county court judge declines to make an order one way or the other.
I do not feel strongly about the Amendment or whether or not it should be accepted. I feel that the county court judge should be left with his existing discretion. The way in which he exercises it is well known in the practice of the courts. I should have thought it sufficient to leave this matter to his discretion, exercising powers already given to him under Order 47 of the county court rules.

Mr. MacColl: Like the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I have no very strong views about this. If it were the will of the House to do it, it would not seriously alter the present position. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has argued her case with great force and effectiveness. 'The drafting seems to me to be all right, and all that the Amendment is saying is that in a normal case the judge will not make any order as to costs, which is a fairly common practice now in this type of case. But the Amendment goes on to say that if either of the parties by their conduct during or before the proceedings have been open to question the judge might intervene and show his view of the matter by making an award of costs.
This seems to me a reasonable thing to do and it is a matter of judgment. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) thinks about this. If he feels strongly that this is something which should not go into the Bill, I would feel that I would not want to press it at this time because I do not think that it will make a great deal of difference.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that if the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) wanted this or did not want it he was prepared to accept the

position? I should have thought that, rather, he would meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).

Mr. MacColl: I said that I did not think that this would make a great deal of difference in practice and, therefore, I do not think that there is a great point of merit about it. On the other hand, as it is in the 1958 Act there is something to be said for declaring that the attitude should be the same in this matter as it was in those cases. Therefore, from that point of view there is probably a case for accepting the Amendment.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I also have no strong views on the Amendment, but I should have thought that it was easier to leave the existing practice as it stands. Surely county court judges can use their discretion, but if the hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment will he see that it is translated into Scottish terms? We do not know what is meant by "costs".

Sir J. Hobson: The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) moved the Amendment with moderation. It is true that the wording was in the 1958 Act, but it can work two ways. A case where the landlord was entitled to possession took two minutes to decide because it was not disputed, but a long time was spent on whether the order should have been defended or not and whether on the way the case was conducted the tenant should have had costs.
If the Amendment were accepted, the tenant would not be able to recover the cost from the landlord. It works both ways, and on this question of costs one has to look at both sides. On the whole, I should have thought that in a temporary Measure it would have been better to leave the matter as it was to the discretion of the judges who exercise it very properly and understand the problems as they arise rather than that the judges should be shackled in the way in which they might exercise their discretion in favour of the tenant having costs if the tenant was so entitled. Therefore, I would suggest to the House, I hope with moderation, that it might be better not in temporary legislation to put in a restriction of this nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Page 3, line 31 leave out "and".

In line 34 at end insert:
and
(c) for the reference to costs, there shall be substituted a reference to expenses".—[Mr. Manuel.]

Clause 3.—(RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATION OF FOREGOING SECTIONS, 1959, c. 22.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 36, at the end to insert:
(a) a contract to which the Rent of Furnished Houses (Scotland) Act 1943 and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 as amended by the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949 applied immediately before the termination thereof or would then have applied but for the provision as to rateable value contained in section 12(1) of the Rent Act 1957.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 36, at end insert:
(a)a contract

(i)to which the Rent of Furnished Houses (Scotland) Act 1943 and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 as amended by the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949 applied immediately before the termination thereof or would then have applied but for the provision as to rateable value contained in section 12(1) of the Rent Act 1957; and
(ii) which related to premises situate in an area which was not at the termination thereof designated by an order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government (made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) as one to which the provision of this Act apply.

and Amendment No. 19, in line 36 at end insert:
(a) a tenancy of a furnished dwelling which has been customarily occupied by visitors for holiday purposes and is not occupied for the purpose of a permanent residence.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respectfully agree, Mr. Speaker, that I think it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we took Amendment No. 18, also in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, and Amendment No. 19, in the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), the more so, because, as the House will have appreciated, Amendment No. 18 is an alternative to Amendment No. 17.
The purpose of the Amendment which I have moved is to exclude from the Bill

what are called furnished lettings, and the effect also, I hope, of Amendment No. 18 is to do the same, except in areas as the Minister may by order designate.
This is one of the matters which throughout our discussions on this Bill has seemed to many of us, particularly on this side of the House, to be alien to the main purpose of what the right hon. Gentleman calls this emergency Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as the Minister has told us again and again, has been to deal with the possible effect on tenants who might be evicted as a result of the Government's announcement that they intend to make substantial Amendments in the Rent. Act. It is therefore important on this Amendment for us to be clear as to how little is the connection between furnished lettings and the Rent Act.
In previous Rent Acts, as I think the House is aware, unfurnished lettings have been dealt with, but furnished lettings have been outside the main purpose of the Rent Acts and have been dealt with, where at all, in a separate and subsidiary way. That was true of the 1957 Act whose repeal it is the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman to effect.
Therefore, the first proposition that I wish to put to the House is that the bringing into this Bill of provisions in respect of furnished lettings is completely outside the emergency purpose which we were told was the reason for which the Bill in the Minister's own phrase was solely and exclusively introduced. There has, after all, been no statement that the Government intend to extend the Rent Acts to furnished lettings. There is, therefore, so far as I know, no crisis, no emergency in respect of furnished lettings. That has been created, as I understand it, as a result of the Government's statement in the unfurnished field only. This provision, therefore, whatever may be said for or against it, does not seem to me to come within the emergency concept of the Bill, although of course, the right hon. Gentleman can create very quickly a further emergency if he says that it is his intention to extend the Rent Acts to furnished lettings. But if he does that, he will create an emergency which it will take a good deal more than this Bill to deal with.
It is also a fact—and this is very material—that under previous legislation


furnished lettings have been dealt with under a different system from unfurnished. There is the system, with which the House is familiar, of the rent tribunals, and it is significant that this Bill makes no mention of and leaves absolutely untouched the system of rent tribunals. What it does is to provide that furnished lettings shall be dealt with both by the county court, under this Bill, and, in parallel, under the separate system of the rent tribunals. That is surely a highly unsatisfactory position. It is, at any rate, possible that both the rent tribunal and the county court may in rapid succession be concerned in dealing with the same premises, and it is an indication, moreover, of the inappropriateness of dragging furnished lettings into this Bill that the Government leave untouched under this Measure the existing system for dealing with furnished lettings through the rent tribunal. Of course, the reason why furnished and unfurnished lettings have, as a matter of history and of fact, been dealt with by a different system is that the subject matter is substantially different.
Furnished lettings have a very wide scope. They include—I concede this to the right hon. Gentleman—the letting of a complete furnished house to a family in a certain number of cases for a long time, but they extend also over a very wide field indeed down to the let of one room to one person for perhaps a week. They cover the important subject, on which I think some of my hon. Friends may wish to say something, of seaside lettings for holidays. They include the equally important case of people who go abroad on business or duty and let their houses for a limited period designed to coincide with their absence abroad, and they include a vast number of comparatively short lets to students, secretaries and other single people, very often young people.
The field is therefore a very wide one, and I think that must be the reason why our predecessors in this House, when they dealt with this thorny subject, have in general dealt with furnished lettings under a different system to unfurnished. Therefore, it seems to me clear that the onus is very much on the right hon. Gentleman to show why he should reverse that, and why, without

altering the existing system in respect of furnished lettings, he should include them in the provisions of this Bill which he introduced to us in the context of a problem relating to unfurnished lettings.
7.30 p.m.
While there may well be problems, particularly in London, affecting the furnished letting of whole houses, taking the country as a whole the typical furnished letting is probably that of the single room to a single person. There are innumerable examples of this. In such cases, the balance of hardship between landlord and tenant would probably be rather different from that in the case of unfurnished lettings. If the owner of an unfurnished house is deprived of occupation of it by legislation, he may well suffer financial loss and the hardship of not being able to occupy his own house. If, on the other hand, the owner of premises let furnished, particularly individual rooms let furnished in a house, is not able to obtain possession of them, he may well be exposed to different and more intense hardship. The problem of the unsuitable tenant, the tenant who misconducts himself or is in one way or another difficult, is probably not so great for the landlord of the unfurnished house, but, when one has taken someone into one's own house to occupy a furnished room, the effect both on oneself and upon other tenants of individual rooms is serious and immediate.
All these facts, arising from the different nature of the subject matter, explain, I think, why it has been settled policy for many years to deal with unfurnished lettings and furnished lettings differently. Equally—on this I must await what the right hon. Gentleman may have to say about Amendment No. 23—the question of the speed of recovery of premises is, generally speaking, even more important in the case of the furnished than in the case of the unfurnished letting.
Holiday resorts pose two special problems. There is the problem of what are called the winter lettings. I understand it is the practice of people who let houses or furnished rooms during the summer to let those same houses or rooms, very often at a low rent, during the winter. They do not expect to make very much profit, but someone is found accommodation and the houses are kept warm and


dry. It is essential for such people that, at the beginning of the summer holiday season, occupation of the houses should be given up by the winter tenants. There is the equal and related problem of lettings during the summer, when people take tenancies for specific periods, generally fortnight by fortnight, Saturday to Saturday. If a tenant were to hold out and say that he would not go until he was taken to the county court, and, when taken to the county court, were to apply for a suspension, the whole programme of seaside lettings would be disrupted. Not only would the owners suffer but a very large number of perfectly innocent people would have their summer holidays ruined.

Mr. Mellish: That could happen today.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Everything is possible today, of course, but what the hon. Gentleman, in his sedentary utterances, does not realise is that this Bill, if it continues to apply to furnished lettings, will make it much more likely to happen because it will take away the other methods available to the landlord to secure possession.
There is the other problem of those who go abroad on duty or on business for a limited period and who, very sensibly, let their houses while they are away. It is better, because of our shortage of accommodation that their houses should not remain empty, and, of course, if one is fortunate in finding a good tenant, it can be a most satisfactory arrangement. But what is to happen when the owners return from abroad if these furnished lettings remain covered by the Bill?
Since our discussions on the Bill began, I have received a considerable number of letters from people who feel that they will be adversely affected, in particular, by the incorporation of furnished lettings. Here are a few lines from a letter from a gentleman who is in exactly the position I have described, a gentleman serving in Cyprus as an official. He says:
But civil servants serving overseas for a specific term of duty and who are due to return to their home stations to continue work with the Government may not be able to obtain possession of their homes which they let during their three year tour of duty abroad.

He goes on to say that the effect of this will be disastrous for people so placed.
This brings me to another important consideration which the House will wish to have in mind. The inevitable effect of applying this Bill to furnished lettings generally must be to reduce the supply of furnished accommodation available. People such as that gentleman who wrote to me from Cyprus, and many others like him going abroad for a limited period, faced with the risk of not being able to get into their homes when they return although the tenants entered under a specific obligation to render them up on a particular date, will decide to leave their houses empty. Equally, people who have spare rooms in their houses suitable for the accommodation of students, secretaries and so on will, at least, hesitate before making them available to people who, as a result of the Bill, would be in a position to stay on for a quite considerable period against the owner's will.
I do not ask the Government to take this from me. I have had a flow of correspondence, though I shall not weary the House by reading it all. This is what is said by a gentleman in South-West London:
I have just acquired an 11-room house in Putney which was let as offices and which I propose to convert into self-contained flatlets. If the Bill is passed in its present form, I would leave the house in office use. No doubt, the proposed Bill will cut down heavily the supply of furnished lettings which are badly required by overseas students, visitors, etc.
Here is another example:
The proposed Bill will discourage owners of private houses letting them if they are temporarily absent.
I have here another letter—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen it; I gather that the original was sent to him—which says the same, that, as the Bill is drafted, a family going abroad for weeks or months will not, as they do at present, let their house.
The introduction of controls of this kind on lettings inevitably has the effect —this is something one has to balance —of tending to diminish the supply. For the reasons which I have given relating to the special factors affecting furnished lettings, it is demonstrably clear that the drying up of supply will


be much more manifest in furnished than in unfurnished lettings. In the light of the representations which many of us are receiving, this is plainly true.
No one knows better than the Minister that our accommodation problem is serious and will remain serious for many years. We ought to use every sound piece of accommodation which is available. It would be singularly unfortunate if by passing a Bill, the main purpose of which, according to the Minister, is to deal with a totally different problem, one enacted principles which would have the effect of reducing the supply of furnished accommodation. I warn the Minister that, if he persists in the inclusion of furnished accommodation within this temporary Measure, he will, before many months have passed, see a diminution of the supply. We have warned him from this side of the House, and he will be taking a serious responsibility if he persists.
I know that, as in all these matters, one must balance not so much good against good but perhaps evil against evil. I do not dispute that, even in respect of furnished lettings, there are family problems in London and perhaps one or two other great conurbations. It is difficult to balance all this against the vast mass of furnished lettings about which there is no problem but about which there will be a problem, undoubtedly, if this Bill goes through in its present form.
It is in an endeavour to find a way of meeting both points that the Amendments have been tabled. The intended effect is that the Minister could apply control of furnished lettings to any area by making an Order subject only to negative procedure, so that there would be no question of delay or loss of Parliamentary time. Unless he applied this provision by Order furnished lettings would not be included in the Bill. Having said this, however, I prefer the Amendment which has been moved to the others, for I do not think there is a case at all for an emergency Bill to apply to furnished lettings.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a point about London which has, I accept, certain validity. If we arrive at a sensible solution by dealing with those parts of the country which the Minister, at his discretion, thinks it necessary to

deal with but do not apply the Bill to those parts where he thinks it unnecessary, it may be that we shall effect some improvement in the Bill.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not see the force of the argument on the Amendment I have moved, will at least reflect on the following Amendment. Under that Amendment he would have power, if he thought it right, to apply control to furnished lettings in any part of the country he wished to designate. He would therefore be free to deal with the problems of London housing, which many of us think are special in many ways, but he would do so without inflicting the very serious damage on seaside and holiday resorts, in particular, which will suffer from the Bill as it stands.
I do not see how the Minister can object to a proposal which leaves the power in his hands, which leaves him free, if he thinks it his duty, to apply the Bill to any part of the country, but which does not involve Parliament prejudging the issue as to whether control should operate throughout the country regardless of varying circumstances and without the chance of differentiation.
It is for that reason that we have tabled the second of these three Amendments, although my feelings are very much in favour of the first. I have been impressed, however, by the volume of protest from certain areas as to the risk of a universal application of the Bill to furnished lettings throughout the country. After some reflection, therefore, we tabled the second Amendment in an endeavour to meet that point. This is probably the most important issue which arises at this stage of the Bill. If the Bill goes through in its present form the effects will be very serious. I hope that the Minister and the House will reflect on them.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has put the case for omitting from the Bill all furnished houses. If I felt that the Amendment would be accepted, there would be nothing else I need say, but I must face the remote possibility that it will not be. If it is not to be accepted, I should like the Government to consider alternatives.


There are two possibilities—the exclusion of all furnished houses and the exclusion of furnished houses on a regional basis. I find it difficult to follow arguments against the second Amendment. If the Minister wanted to, he could, under that Amendment, include every region in the country. We are not asking him to give up anything.
The last Amendment stands in my name and it is noticeable that those of my hon. Friends who have also signed it represent such places as Blackpool, Poole, Folkestone, Hythe and Bournemouth. These are all constituencies which border the sea and which smell of sea air. It is equally significant that right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite who are dealing with this problem represent Coventry and Bermondsey and West Ham. They are all Members for urban constituencies.
I am sure that if the Minister is to make anything of housing, the first thing that he must get into his head—I am sure that he will—is that we are not living in 1945. Then the housing problem was national. Of course, there is a housing problem even today in most areas but it is at a point where it is regional, where the difficulties existing in Coventry, Bermondsey and West Ham are not those to be found in the seaside towns and the rest of the country. It is a general statement as well as a particular one that regionalism, of which we hear so much today, is nowhere more applicable than it is in housing.
The case made by hon. Members opposite links the problem with what is called "Rachmanism". I do not dispute the desirability or even the necessity of such a Bill in the East End of London and various other big cities, where there is a special case for what may be called extreme measures. But no such thing as Rachmanism or anything like it exists or has been claimed to exist by hon. Members opposite in seaside resorts. The name of Rachman is unheard of in Dorset and in Poole just as cows and sheeps are, no doubt, unheard of in West Ham. There, one is dealing with a totally different problem and the measures needed in London simply do not apply elsewhere.
There has been reference by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) to landlords as being

rogues and villains. That may well be true in Bermondsey but it is not so in Weymouth or Poole or other places where civilised persons live who, for many years, have entered into contracts and have kept them, as do their tenants.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to my constituency. For his information, I point out that the municipality owns two-thirds of the borough and we are not, therefore, bothered by landlords either.

Mr. King: The fact remains that the Bill is particularly desirable for London if not for Bermondsey. The argument still applies. There are two kinds of persons with which I am concerned. The first is the Service men who form a big portion of occupants certainly of Portland and many other constituencies. Last week the Weymouth Echo said:
Lodgings for senior ratings are urgently needed during the winter months by the Navy at Portland. A naval spokesman at Portland said, 'Many men come in to the base at short notice and we want to have a list of places where they can be directed for lodging.'
This is what the Bill will prevent people from doing. Indeed, if a concrete case is desired I will give one forthwith. I have had an enormous mail, and one letter springs to mind immediately. It is from a retired lieutenant of the Royal Navy, now living on a modest pension in a four-bedroomed house. Previously he has for short periods let the top floor consisting of two bedrooms to Naval ratings during their time in Portland. He writes to point out that he has married, grown-up children of his own, and when they come back he uses those rooms for his family. That is a natural family situation.

Mr. Lubbock: What the hon. Gentleman is describing sounds like a licence rather than a tenancy. They cannot be assumed to be tenants.

Mr. King: The top floor is let as a furnished flat.

Mr. Lubbock: Self-contained?

Mr. King: Yes.
Usually, he has used that flat for his children when they returned. He says that if the Bill goes through he will not let that flat. Why should he? We are doing what I should have thought right


hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite particularly desired not to do. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will add to the problem of under-occupation, and many large houses will not be fully occupied as otherwise they might be. That, briefly, is the problem of the Service families.
More important is the problem of the seaside landladies, and perhaps I might first say something about them in general. Many of them are aged 60 or over. Many of them have not got pensions. They have very few ways of making their living, as women of that age cannot easily get a job. For generations past we have had the widow or the spinster at a seaside resort who has found a harmless way of earning a living, and that is by letting rooms to visitors, sometimes for part of the year.
The Bill has caused them alarm. Do not let us think only of being unable to get a tenant out. Let us think also of the landlady. Quite often her lodgers come for a fortnight or so from a Midland town. They may turn out to be thoroughly undesirable. It does not often happen, but if there is a case of drunkenness in the house of a spinster of 60, she is able to tell the person concerned to go. That is a measure of discipline which I do not believe has ever been exercised unreasonably, and I suggest that it is wrong to do away with it.
Many of these women have written to me pointing out that they have no other means of livelihood. I would perhaps go so far as to say there is an element of risk, but there is certainly an element of discomfort if the landlady has lodgers from industrial towns with whom she has been able to deal in the past but will not be able to deal in future. We must remember that this Bill introduces criminal penalties. If these landladies act in a way which may be held to be unreasonable, not unnaturally they will be frightened if they are told that in certain circumstances they may be liable to six months' imprisonment. This is a form of discipline to which the seaside society simply is not accustomed.
I appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the circumstances of people in whose interests they have not advanced one single argument. We have not heard one case of a landlord or landlady behaving unreasonably in the sort of places which I have

described. No doubt there are hundreds of cases in London, but they are not found in small seaside resorts. The Government are taking a bludgeon to beat a problem which does not exist.
If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think—which I hope they will not—that this is some kind of party case, perhaps I might quote this from one neutral source:
Already there gave been … anxious inquiries from poorly-off elderly people, whose sole income derives from long furnished lettings in winter and from short ones in summer, as well as even more desperate cris-de-coeur from others who let furnished rooms in their own houses simply to make ends meet. It has always seemed to me that to saddle such landlords with immovable, though legally blameless, tenants would not only inflict hardship but would remove flexibility from the private letting market.
That comes not from any Front Bench speaker on this side of the House or the other side, or from any backbencher, but from the New Statesman, one paper to which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman might have been prepared to listen, and from which he would accept this as a reasonable and neutral view.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: My constituency is in the London area and a number of civil servants reside there. Many of them are in the Foreign Service, attached to the Colonial Service, the Commonwealth Relations Office, and so on. I have had a number of letters from them on this subject because when they go abroad for perhaps a year or 18 months, they are in the habit of letting their houses. One correspondent says that he always lets his house with a certain amount of trepidation, but that if he now has to face the risk of not being able to recover possession for up to 12 months it may well be the final impediment to him and to others who otherwise would be prepared to accept the risk of letting their houses. This applies not only to these worthy citizens in the Foreign Service but also to engineers and salesmen who have to go abroad on their company's business and to those in the fighting Services. I am convinced that a number of them, particularly if they are going abroad for a few months, will hesitate to let their houses while they are abroad.
To talk for a moment about holiday letting, I think it is often advantageous to quote a human case, and I shall quote


one which has been sent to me which puts the case far better than I can. The writer says:
I obtained a mortgage on my house some years ago to purchase a furnished terrace cottage in Whitstable to provide seaside holidays for my children and the children of my relatives. In addition I filled in with other fee paying holiday makers and endeavoured to find a winter tenant who was looking for a temporary home. In the event the children have grown up and the tendency is to use the cottage for holidays for my wife and myself and any other holiday makers who may be interested. The winter tenants have included the following types; people who have sold up and are waiting to go abroad, soldiers' families coming back from abroad who are awaiting allocation of married quarters, sailors temporarily stationed at Chatham Barracks who wish to have their families near them, artisans doing temporary work in the district, workmen who are new to the district and are looking round before settling in rented property or houses they are going to buy, finally, scoundrels trying to get something for nothing, who get in under false pretences, pay little or no rent and are difficult to get out.
I think the Government proposals will only result in the latter type of person imposing on me. I am aware that I have recourse to the law which in due time will give me the right of entry into my property, but in the meantime what will happen to the holiday makers who have booked to take over the tenancy on a specific date?
I think I am offering a useful service to all my tenants except those scoundrels mentioned above. Is it proposed to offer this type something for nothing at the expense of all the others some of whom have been using the cottage for their children for years?
I cannot put the case more forcibly than that and I feel that the Government ought to omit holiday and furnished lettings. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do it in every part of the country, he should accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion and do it on a regional basis.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). I also regard the Amendment as an alternative to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I rise because it seems to me from the attitude of hon. Members opposite that they have not yet recognised either the size or the nature of the problem which the Bill is likely to cause to a large part of those engaged in the holiday industry. In Blackpool, 500 establishments have recently been converted into flatlets or flats particularly designed for summer letting.

Each establishment contains a number of flatlets—some a few and some up to 20.
These establishments are not owned by large property companies; they are owned and run by families. In many cases the persons concerned are of retirement age, who have put into these properties all their savings, and they regard them as their sole means of livelihood. The total number of people engaged in running these flatlets in Blackpool is over 1,000. Most of these establishments have been created in the last five years or so, to meet a new demand—the growing demand from holiday-makers, especially those with young children, for what I may describe as the "do-it-yourself" holiday, in accommodation which is self-contained and where they can keep their own hours.
Like hotels and boarding houses, these establishments are an essential part of the holiday industry. The way in which they make their bookings is very much like that which operates in hotels. They make bookings throughout the summer, for two or three weeks at a time, and take deposits from their customers, who often come back to them year after year. Out of season they are sometimes able to let their flatlets for low rents for limited periods of five or six months. The average rent for a flatlet in Blackpool in the winter is as low as 31s. a week.
I can assure hon. Members opposite that the owners of holiday flats in my constituency are extremely alarmed about the effect that the Bill will have on them if it passes into law in its present form. Indeed, a deputation from the holiday flats industry which came to see me the other day described the Bill as farcical in this respect. The owners of these establishments are worried because they fear that if a winter tenant holds over they will lose a substantial part of their summer earnings, as a result of being unable to get him out—and they rely upon their summer earnings for their livings. They fear that so long as that tenant stays they will be receiving only the low winter rent. Furthermore, their summer programmes will be dislocated.
A point which has not been made is that if it is necessary for the owners of these establishments to take proceedings, however much hon. Members opposite


may try to speed things up the owners of holiday flats will not know how long those proceedings will take, and when the tenant will be out. If it is the summer season they will not know whether they will be able to keep the contracts that they have made with the remainder of their customers, or whether they ought to warn them to make other arrangements. If their summer programmes are dislocated and their would-be customers are unable to move into the accommodation promised to them they are worried at the possibility of being faced with litigation initiated by their customers, and by the prospect of having to compensate them for the extra expense involved in finding other hotel accommodation for their holidays.
I followed closely the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, earlier this afternoon on the question of expediting proceedings. I had the impression that he could not hold out any serious hope that, at best, proceedings could be completed in less than 14 days. I speak somewhat as a layman in these matters but I suspect that if the Bill causes a great increase in the work of the county courts even a period of 14 days may be an ambitious target.
I noted with interest that at an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill was aimed at protecting tenants living in their homes. I hope that I am not misrepresenting him if I say that my impression was that he implied that the Bill was not aimed at holiday tenants. As it stands, however, the Bill will apply to holiday tenancies. In default of an Amendment exempting furnished lettings altogether, what is needed is one which takes holiday tenancies right out of the Bill.
I hope that the Government will accept either the Amendment on furnished lettings or Amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 19 will not cause hardship, whereas the Bill as it now stands is likely to cause hardship not only to the modest owners of holiday accommodation but also to holiday makers. Successive Governments have urged—as has the British Travel Association—that the holiday industry should modernise itself so as to provide better facilities not only for British

holiday makers but also for visitors from overseas who bring us badly needed foreign exchange. That is what the holiday flatlet owners have tried to do. I ask the Government to help them to do it and not to make their task more difficult.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I want to say a word in support of the general case which has been advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I suggest that the Government, in including furnished lettings within the Bill, have ignored all the conclusions reached by many committees over the last 40 years, appointed by various Governments, to consider the desirability of control over furnished lettings, starting with the Salisbury Committee in 1920 and including the second Ridley Committee in 1945. All of these recognised that the extension of such control, involving security of tenure for the tenants of furnished lettings, would threaten to dry up the supply, and it was only with the greatest reluctance that the second Ridley Committee in 1945 recommended a limited degree of security of tenure in the emergency conditions which then prevailed. Even then it said:
We think that to confer an unlimited right of security of tenure on the tenants of furnished lettings would have the unfortunate consequence of drying up the supply of domestic lettings.
In the special conditions then prevailing there may have been a case for passing the 1946 Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, but surely we do not have to acknowledge today that the accession to power of another Socialist Government represents another emergency calling for yet another extension of what was thought desirable in 1945.
If we look at the effect of the Rent Act on the supply of furnished lettings, even within Greater London, we find that the survey produced in 1960 on the effects of the Rent Act—Cmnd. 1246—pointed out that the one sector of supply, even in London, which had come forward more abundantly as a result of the Rent Act, was the sector containing furnished lettings. They studied 19,000 properties in Greater London in which the occupation had changed in the two years since the passing of the Rent Act. Of those 19,000 previously controlled unfurnished lettings 2,000 had been let within the two years


to new furnished tenants. We have that argument to show that the removal of control does encourage supply. If the Minister and his hon. Friends are not prepared to accept the general case advanced by my right hon. Friend for removing furnished lettings altogether from the Bill, I urge them to look with more sympathy and care than yet they appear to have done at the position of holiday lettings, holiday landlords and holiday tenants.
I do not understand the case the Government are trying to make. Are they suggesting that the holiday-making occupants of holiday-let premises would face hardship or difficulty if the Amendment were accepted? Are they suggesting that hardship would arise if they were not included, as they are now, within the terms of this Bill? I cannot conceive that they are saying that it is essential for the purposes of the Bill to include the holiday lettings within its scope.
Are they saying that the landlords of these holiday premises would face no difficulty if the Bill remains as it is drafted? It may be that no landlord with holiday accommodation to let need be worried because he will always be able to get possession, and holiday tenants will move out on the day they are due to go. I do not believe that can be so. There must be some occasions when tenants will stay on and some landlords will face hardship. The only case which I can conceive that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are putting forward is that it is not within their capacity to produce a draft which will release holiday-let property from the provisions of the Bill; that they have not yet been able to devise a suitable formula. I cannot in a logical situation see the case for allowing the Bill to stand as it is drafted.
I suggest to the Minister that there is yet a third formula which the Government might be prepared to consider in place of that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset. South (Mr. Evelyn King). I refer to the provisions contained in the New Zealand Tenancy Act of a much longer duration which has been re-enacted on a number of occasions since the war by Governments of different political colour. They recognised the problem and have provided for it in the latest legislation of

1955. In Section 8(1) of the New Zealand Tenancy Act it states:
Where an agreement has been entered into at any time after the date of the commencement of this Act for the letting of any dwelling-house for a term not exceeding six weeks, this Act shall not apply to the premises so let or to any part thereof in respect of that tenancy.
It exempts lettings of less than six weeks duration, which would include most holiday lettings. The next subsection of the Act makes a comparable provision for camp sites and caravans.
It may be argued that this could be got round if a would-be landlord who wanted to make a long let were to make a let of only six weeks and renew it from time to time. That is provided for by the far-sighted New Zealand draftsmen by the provisions in subsection (3) where it is stated:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the application of this Act in any case where the tenant continues with the express consent of the landlord to occupy the premises after the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of any such tenancy.
An Amendment on those lines may not meet the whole case put forward by my hon. Friend but it would go some way towards it. For the reasons which I have indicated I cannot see why hon. Gentlemen opposite are not willing to try to do this, if not in this House in some other place. I see no reason in justice for rejecting the case out of hand and I urge them to look again to see whether something on these lines might not prove acceptable to their general case, whatever it may be.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I support my hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of the seaside resorts. It is quite clear that either Amendment No. 18 or Amendment No. 19 would deal with the problem. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) would go a long way, though perhaps not all the way, towards solving the problem of the seaside resorts. If it could be ensured that lettings of no more than six weeks, or perhaps in the case of Blackpool of a considerably less period, would be exempted, a lot of the difficulties would be removed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentioned the difficulty of


winter lettings. I am quite sure that landlords in many seaside resorts would heave a sigh of relief if either one of these approaches could be made; if either the matter could be dealt with on a regional basis—so that Blackpool was not visited with the sins of London—or on a time basis, as has been suggested. Either procedure would be within the capacity of the Parliamentary draftsmen and would provide an avenue of escape from the very real difficulty which confronts landlords in many a holiday resort.
In Blackpool we have two types of lets for holiday flats. One type of letting is for the winter period when flats are let at low rents purposely, because it is necessary to keep them occupied and to recover the cost of repairs. They are then available for the holiday trade in the summer months. During the summer months it is possible for people to earn a considerable amount more, by working on the Golden Mile and in the amusement arcades, than at any other time of the year, and it might well be a temptation to those who have cheap winter accommodation to say, "I am going to chance my arm and stay on." If that were done, it would wreck the letting programme for the holiday season. Summer lettings vary in length from a week to 10 days or a fortnight, and they depend on people leaving at the agreed time. I admit that this will not be a widespread problem involving every establishment, but, even if it occurs only occasionally, it will cause great difficulty.
It is argued that landlords can go to the county courts where the procedure, it is hoped, will be expedited, and get the occupants out. It is my experience that nothing which this House could do would succeed in making the county court procedure sufficiently speedy to solve the problem confronting a landlord or landlady whose premises are occupied by someone who will not leave. It was argued that such a position is not very different from the position which might exist today, but the situation would be different. Today, if a tenant will not go, the landlord cannot use physical force to drive him out. If a tenant says he is not going, the landlord may go to the county court. If a landlord has a tenant who has taken the premises for a week, 10 days or a fortnight, it is clear that, in the end, and without physical force being used, he will be put out. The landlord

may arrive on the doorstep and say, "You are getting out". In my experience there has never been any trouble about people leaving their accommodation—

Mr. Mellish: Why should there be any difficulty now?

Mr. Miscampbell: Because if they stay on now, they know perfectly well that the minimum period they can stay will be a fortnight at least. If anybody tries to interfere with that position he will be brought before the court.
When one thinks of holiday cottages and flats the picture of so-called luxury accommodation may come to mind, the sort of places on parts of the coast of Cornwall. Blackpool, however, caters mainly for the less well-paid person who comes from Lancashire to enjoy a cheapish holiday. Such a person wants for himself and his family a house or part of a house which has been properly converted and which, 5 or 10 years ago, was probably the traditional type of boarding house.
The trade is changing all the time. In many holiday resorts people are no longer content to go to the traditional boarding house. Many people are going in for holiday flats and cottages, which give them a cheaper opportunity to spend a week or longer at the coast with their families. This is the trend in Blackpool. It is an important trend and the town is anxious that it should continue. It is believed that in future it will represent one basis for the development of the town.

Mr. Mellish: What is all this business of holiday flats being made available and built in Blackpool? I always understood that a person went into a flat at the seaside but had a home to go back to after his holiday. I have always understood that after spending two or three weeks at the seaside he and his family were only too glad to return to their own home. Why is everything suddenly changing so that thousands of people who go to Blackpool no longer wish to return to their homes but prefer to stay on? Is it because they love Blackpool so much?

Mr. Miscampbell: The answer is simple. Why are the Government taking such steps to protect these people? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has had expressed to him by people in Blackpool the fear that if someone does not leave a flat the landlord may in some way be responsible for the damage caused to someone because of his having lost his holiday. I cannot believe that that is a well founded fear. I am subject to correction by others more learned in this matter, but if someone stayed on in a flat and took advantage of the opportunities offered by the Bill, the landlord would be able to plead before the county court—which, no doubt, will have to deal with the matter and decide whether or not the person concerned would have to leave the flat—that the person was not entitled to damages. I suggest that in such circumstances the county court would not say that damages should be awarded.
The trouble is that unless the landlord runs the risk of suffering those damages —claimed by people whose holidays have been ruined, those people saying, "I want compensation because my holiday is ruined"—he must take immediate steps to get the person who is in the property out of it. If not, it might be argued against the landlord, "You have done nothing to get the person out and you are allowing my holiday to be ruined".
This sort of thing is representative of the arguments my hon. Friends have been adducing throughout our discussion of the Bill. We have been claiming that it imposes on landlords the duty to go to considerable expense by going to the county court. If the Bill had been properly drafted he would not be put to such expense and trouble and, as we know, even if the landlord succeeds in the county court against the person who has stayed on in the property, he may well not see a penny of the costs he has incurred.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friends have developed with considerable experience practically the whole of the case of what one might call the seaside industry. While I may trespass in my remarks on what I might call the lodging side of the subject, I wish to deal with the interests of the tourist industry as a whole.
I do not believe that the Government appreciate the damage which they are likely to do by a Measure of this

kind to the whole of the tourist industry. By that I mean much wider than merely seaside resorts. I venture also to suggest that the Bill is the forerunner of things to come.
Nobody can claim that I have been one who in the past has rooted for the landlord. I have always been a rebel in this sphere and I have voted against my party over it more than once. I do not necessarily share the views which are sometimes accepted on this side of the House in certain aspects of this subject.
I strongly and sincerely believe that the greatest mistake the Government have made in the Bill is that they have applied it to the whole of the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 18 is the nub of the matter. If the Minister would still consider the possibility of the Bill being applied to parts, but not all, of the United Kingdom, I suggest that it is along those lines that he might achieve rapidly what he requires, without the need for long debates and without the need to expect trouble from the tourist industry, the seaside resorts and others who will be highly critical of the Bill when it becomes law.
When I mentioned that the Measure may be the forerunner of things to come, I had in mind that we should consider the question of the removal of rent control, for this matter should be considered now. I hope that the Minister will consider that there can be no possible case for the introduction of any form of control over furnished lettings in the future, whether or not this Measure is passed. I say that because there is abundant and sufficient control already, subject to one possible lacuna, and that will depend on whether there is a case in certain parts of the country, certain conurbations and cities, for some form of control over furnished lettings. There is no reason why the Minister should not take powers to control and designate by area those parts of the United Kingdom where a pressing problem arises.
8.30 p.m.
I have some experience, not only of the problems in the country but of direct analysis in the London area. If one takes the Metropolis itself, one finds that only in three or four—at the most,


in six—of the areas of particular councils does this problem arise at all. For example, the Joint Under-Secretary pointed out, perfectly accurately, that it did not apply to Bermondsey, although in the East End. On the other hand, one knows that it may well apply to Paddington, and it may apply in certain circumstances, curiously enough, to Chelsea.
It is equally clear that it does not apply to a great many of the other boroughs in the London area. Therefore, this deals with the most delicate part of the problem with which we are concerned, even in one of the main areas. Therefore, if we are to seek to apply a form of control over evictions from furnished lettings over the whole London area, we are wasting our time with regard to a large part of that area.
It must be remembered, too, that this Bill is an emergency Measure. Presumably, therefore, one should have some evidence of evictions from furnished tenancies, but when I flung that question at the Minister for Housing in the initial stages of this debate he was unable to give any evidence of it, and pointed out that in his view there were insufficient statistics to support an answer. I hope that I correctly summarised what the right hon. Gentleman said. That may be, but such statistics are not necessary, because were we to get evictions—and evictions, in certain circumstances, that lead, or are likely to lead to notoriety—we would soon get the sort of statistics that are the best answer.

Mr. Crossman: What I said was that there were no statistics about either furnished or unfurnished accommodation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, I entirely accept that, but with regard to the furnished ones, to which I was confining myself, there is no evidence at all to support the view that there have been any substantial numbers of evictions in any part of the country at the present time.
The problem in London and the major cities today is that a very large quantity of flexible furnished accommodation is required. We have an enormous turnover of foreigners who come to this country. They are unable to afford, and are also

unable to find, accommodation in our hotels. They come from every corner of the world, and much of the record achieved this year in the immense and important tourist industry has resulted from the arrival of large numbers of Australians, Canadians those from the Commonwealth, those who have come here for study, those who have come here for conferences, those who may come here for the Test Match.
They may come for any one of a myriad different reasons, but, when they come, instead of going into hotels they go into furnished accommodation in the Metropolis. They need to stay for a month, perhaps, or two months, or three or four months. With all this accommodation, and with all these people coming here—who frequently decide to stay on—there must be knowledge in the landlord that he has this rapid turnover in tenants for the accommodation available.
When we turn to the centres of our country and to the river areas—down the Thames, and in the tourist centres in the middle of the country—we see that it is equally necessary that they shall be able to have a very rapid turnover and a flexibility in furnished accommodation, very often not only in the summer but in the winter. This, therefore, applies equally to the central areas as to the seaside.
When we turn to the position in all the university towns—Bath, Bristol, Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge, or the others—we find an equal need for this great flexibility. The difficulty is that the pattern of tourism is changing. These people are moving into caravans—which are also caught, in part, by this Measure. The pattern now is not to say in hotels, not to get board and lodging in a boarding house but to get one's own key to one's own flat. Much of the difficulty in this Bill could have been avoided by making everything licensed to provide bed and breakfast, but that is not the picture today.
An illustration—in this case a seaside one, but it applies equally throughout the country—is given in a letter I have received from constituents who go in for the modern type of accommodation. The letter comes from The Moorings Hotel, 14 Albion Place, Ramsgate, and is sent by two elderl ladies—a Mrs. Beauchamp and another lady. I give


this as an illustration to the House because it is manifestly true.
These ladies write:
We and thousands of other people in the same business are gravely concerned about our position if the Government repeals the Rent Act and gives security to sitting tenants. When the hotel and boarding house business deteriorated"—
the writer is referring to what I have alluded to—
we converted our hotel into holiday flatlets —let by the week or fortnight—for which there is a great demand. During the winter months we let them at very cheap rates"—
an advertisement is included with the letter—
making it quite clear that it is only for the off season' as you see by the advertisement we have in the local paper, semi-permanently. We are already nearly fully booked for the 1965 season and have taken the deposits. Can our winter tenants suddenly say they will not move out? If this happened we would be faced with bankruptcy as the business is our only source of income. Please let us hear your opinion.
I have had to give them my opinion to the effect that there is no doubt that if their tenants decided to stay on they would be able to stay for the period until the matter went to the court and in those circumstances their subsequent bookings would collapse like a pack of cards.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) posed this question when intervening in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell). He asked if the people who went there had flats of their own to go back to. He got a very sharp retort. There is another retort, that this is not so. The people who take these flats at very low rentals are "movables". They are the pensioners and people living on small fixed incomes. They go to the seaside in the winter because they cannot afford to go there in the summer. In the summer they move from the seaside to go inland into cheaper accommodation there. If they outstay their welcome in the winter at the seaside they will cause trouble there and if when they go inland and overstay their welcome they will cause trouble there. That is why this is not such an easy argument to address to the House as one might at first think.
This is an emergency Bill which was brought in with a tremendous clarion call of trumpets because the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and one or two others claimed that in that area, in Acton and perhaps in parts of Liverpool, there is a problem. It is no good the Minister pointing at my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). My right hon. Friend did not ask for this Bill; it is the Minister's Bill. The mere fact that we did not oppose the Second Reading is no answer to the suggestion that the Bill can be properly amended. I have not opposed the Second Reading either in spirit or in thought. But I repeat that there is plenty of opportunity, and the proper thing is to apply the Bill to areas where the problem arises.
If it is applied to Paddington, Acton and parts of Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, it would not hurt the fabric of the tourist industry. Nor would it reduce one whit the amount of flexible accommodation. It would satisfy my hon. Friends who represent seaside constituencies and those, who also ought to be present, who represent tourist resorts in England. It would not make it impossible to encourage people to stay in accommodation when they do not want to stay. It would generally achieve the purpose which the Government want to achieve without at the same time showing complete lack of understanding and ineptitude by not appreciating the problems concerned.
There is the same trouble over this Bill as we have had in all these 50 days, the good old hustle and bustle of being seen to be doing something and, therefore, doing far more than we need to do for fear that someone will understand that we are not doing something which we ought to do.

Mr. Crossman: I rise now because I feel that possibly it is time the House heard what we have to say in response to this long and extremely interesting debate. I myself regret that we did not have this discussion in Committee, but this was not our fault. It was postponed by hon. Members opposite because they preferred to discuss it now. I should have preferred a full discussion in Committee so that we


could have put our point of view earlier. This is our first chance of doing so.
When considering the full question of rent control one is profoundly tempted to consider the possibility of regionalising the solution. There are great differences between different parts of Great Britain. The regional solution applies no more to furnished than to unfurnished lettings. This is a highly localised problem in its acute form. The localisation is in a few great conurbations. It is in those areas that the problems leading to rent control are so violent and passionate that nobody can deny their existence.
On the other hand, it would be an illusion to imagine that in small country towns, or even in Blackpool or Bournemouth, there cannot be cases of eviction or injustice to isolated individuals. If I am asked what the evidence for that is, I repeat something I said earlier, namely, that one thing which I have learned since I became Minister of Housing is the extreme difficulty of obtaining evidence on this subject. We are fortunate in having the Milner Holland Committee, which is completing its labours and which has made the first, and possibly the most thorough, investigation into the rent and tenant-landlord position in one city. I realise now, having had initial talks with the Committee, that the light it will throw on the position in London emphasises our ignorance of everything outside and the danger of drawing conclusions and saying, "We know that this is localised".
However, it is obviously silly to say now, on Report, that we should take powers to apply the Bill separately to separate regions. If we started to try to do such a thing at this stage of the Bill, there would be no Bill before Christmas. In fact, there would be no Bill. There would be no point in having one. We cannot possibly decide now to change the whole shape of the Bill and make it apply narrowly to certain areas without creating great difficulties for other areas. I am certainly not prepared to consider the possibility at this stage of writing into the Bill the provision that it should apply only to certain specific areas. Such a provision can be discussed when we introduce our long-term Measure. It would make good sense for the Opposition to put forward their ideas on the long-term Measure, but it is an entirely

inopportune solution on this short-term Measure.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that by a slip of the tongue the right hon. Gentleman said that we seek to apply the Bill as a whole area by area. Our Amendments relate only to that part of the Bill which extends this form of control to furnished lettings.

Mr. Crossman: The argument, if it applies to furnished lettings, applies with equal force to unfurnished lettings. There would be just as strong a case for eliminating certain areas in respect of them. This is the central issue between us. This is an important debate and I will try to respond to it. If I speak at some length, it is because I have a number of arguments to answer and I think that, even at this late hour, the House deserves a serious answer from the Government in reply to a serious debate.
I am sorry that I left the Chamber for a short time, but I found it necessary to have something to eat after all these hours. When I was listening to the debate earlier I was struck by the curiously different world people live in. Speech after speech referred to the landladies of Blackpool and Bournemouth. However, there was not one speech about the families to whom one furnished room is home. Indeed, we heard it argued that this debate should be about homes and protecting them and that homes excluded furnished lodgings because, after all, they are just furnished lettings and not homes. We have to have this for a small but significant section of this community, many of them young men and women with children.
8.45 p.m.
The furnished room is very often the only home they know. To be evicted from that is worse and easier than to be evicted from an unfurnished dwelling. To get rid of them from the furnished room, the landlord does not even have to put their furniture on the street; he just throws them out. To suggest to me that there is no problem of eviction or of pressures, intimidation or harassment of families living in furnished dwellings shows a total ignorance of the conditions which occur in our great conurbations.
From our point of view, there is in this Bill—at the lowest level, where these


crises occur—no clear distinction between the furnished and unfurnished lettings.

Mr. Miscampbell: Is it not right that at present our furnished accommodation is protected better than anything else by the provisions of the 1946 and 1949 Acts?

Mr. Crossman: I have thought about this. I was going to deal with it. My contention is that there is not adequate protection. If there were we should not need further protection in this Bill. There is overwhelming evidence—a lot of which will be produced before the big Bill—that there is a grave inadequacy in the security of families compelled to live in furnished lettings.

Mr. Evelyn King: In the big cities.

Mr. Crossman: Yes. In the big cities. The House should understand this: the distinction is not between the furnished and the unfurnished letting but between the conurbation, where rented accommodation is desperately short, and those areas of the country where rented accommodation is not so short. That is the distinction, and where accommodation is desperately short one could have harassment or eviction or misery in the furnished and unfurnished lettings alike. Where it is not so short there is not so much harassment and not so much danger. This applies in exactly the same way to both types of letting.
For us, it was absolutely essential, therefore, in dealing with the segment where evictions were likely, to treat the so-called furnished dwelling as what it often is—an unfurnished dwelling masquerading under the guise of a furnished dwelling to evade the Rent Act. I was looking the other day at some evidence which has been collected about one London borough. Half the one-room lettings in the borough are furnished lettings; 72 per cent. of the furnished lettings are one-room; only 10 per cent. of them have exclusive use of kitchens, whereas, in the case of the unfurnished, a vast proportion have exclusive use of the kitchen. It is the furnished room which tends to be accompanied by the most desperate conditions of poverty and the weakest conditions, where the landlord can punish and penalise. We are talking

about the condition of a small segment of the population, as we were in the case of unfurnished accommodation.
Nobody is assuming that the majority of landlords will behave in this way, but, as we heard on the second Reading and in Committee, there is that small minority of landlords who will seek to use the period before the big Bill to get rid of unwanted tenants. And if hon. Members opposite think that this big Bill will not deal with furnished lettings they make a great mistake. Of course it will, because they are one of the most important elements in the problem. Now I turn to the other side. There are very great problems about protecting innocent and decent landlords from the effect of measures which are required in order to protect the tenants of the bad landlords. This is a problem which we have to face in the case of unfurnished lettings as well as in that of furnished ones. I was asked about the present security of tenure. It is true that there are rent tribunals. It is true that if one goes to the tribunal one can get one's three months security prolonged, but there is great evidence that a large number of these people in one-roomed furnished lettings do not go to the tribunal. Anyway, they can be evicted before they do. The landlord gets rid of them before they even go to the tribunal. There is plenty of evidence from London that this happens. I think hon. Members will find when we come to later discussions that a number of hon. Members on this side of the House who have been kind in not speaking in this debate will produce a lot of evidence of the sort of things which happen to poor people in furnished dwellings. In many cases they are no better protected than those in unfurnished dwellings. That is why we had to act to protect them.
Of course, I agree that the measures that we have introduced for this purpose, just like the measures which could have a bad effect on the good farmer, could possibly turn out to be disadvantageous to the good landlord. On that I would like to say one thing to hon. Members opposite. I am sure that everything that was said by those hon. Members who spoke for the seaside resorts was said with sincerity. I have had letters, and a number of people have come to see


me, asking "Is it true that my flat is in danger if I let it to somebody and go abroad?" I have said, "It has always been in danger in the sense that if you choose a tenant who is awkward and you want to get him out, in practice you have to go to court." That was always true because no sensible, decent person would try to evict by force.
If the suggestion is that this Bill creates a danger if one should choose a tenant who decided to be awkward, I would say that that is not a new danger. It is not a good service to the constituents of hon. Members opposite to cause alarm and dismay by suggesting that this Bill has introduced a novel risk. The risk in England and Wales always existed. I shall come to the position of Scotland in a minute. There has always been the risk that one might let one's house to a certain type of person and that it might take weeks, by means of the court, to get him out.
What has this Bill done? I want to be absolutely fair because we have asked for an impartial assessment of the problem. The Bill has given the courts the power to grant a stay of execution for 12 months so that the courts can give a tenant the right to stay. It has also given the most elaborate guidance to the courts so that they shall not let tenants stay if they are doing any of the things which it has been suggested they would do at some of the seaside resorts. In such a case the courts would get rid of them. It is also true that if one waited to go to the courts the weeks would be wasted—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House are not saying that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is wrong, but he is giving the tenant an encouragement or a mandate to stay. Thus he will stay and use the procedure of the courts.

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. This Bill gives no mandate. The mandate was there in the sense that a tenant who wanted to be awkward on the termination of a tenancy in England or Wales could stay and say, "Get me out if you want but you shall jolly well take me to court to do so." This kind of person in a free country is a damned nuisance to good, innocent people whom he persuades to let him stay in their houses. But this is not the first time

that the tenant has been given the right. I think it is a great pity for the tourist industry in our seaside resorts if hon. Members, in the passions of political disagreement, spread alarm by suggesting that this legislation has done something which it has not done. It has given no mandate to these people which they did not have before in England and Wales.
Now I come to Scotland—

Mr. Evelyn King: rose—

Mr. Crossman: No, I will not give way now. I am going to refer to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to ask questions. I do not dislike answering questions, but I now want to talk about Scotland. Nobody on the other side of the House has yet referred to the landladies in the seaside resorts of Scotland. Why? Because they have been subjected to the Bill's measures, the so-called mandate, for the last 200 years. These unfortunate Scots officers who have let their houses and gone abroad have been doing it for 300 years and no particle of evidence has been collected today to indicate why it is that in Scotland, where they can evict only after a court order, none of these catastrophic events has occurred in their seaside resorts.
This is the answer to people who are trying to spread alarm and despondency. All that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has to do is to leave Ramsgate for one day and go to Scotland and study the boarding houses there and ask what happens; or he can read a book. He will find that this practice has existed there because there they have a civilised law under which they say that throwing people out by the scruff of their necks by force is an uncivilised practice even when done by the angelic landladies of Ramsgate and Blackpool. Those who let and who are not shrewd enough to see a rotter before he comes in, do not make a success of their lettings. They must get used to facts and must learn more about human nature before they do more letting.
We are legislating here for protection from eviction. We are legislating against the real danger to the tenant of the furnished room. He has been harshly treated and at times he has been under exactly the same kind of risk as the tenant of the unfurnished room. It is true that


he has had the tribunal, but he has not used it because he was too weak or too frightened. These people were terrorised by their landlords into thinking that if they wanted to stay they must not use the tribunal. These conditions exist and they are a scandal and disgrace. We shall eliminate them, if we can, in the big Measure. In the meanwhile when the emergency Measure deals with the threat of emergency evictions between now and the coming of the other Bill, it would have been a mockery to leave out furnished lettings.
There was the question also of estimating to what risks we were exposing the landlords and landladies of Ramsgate and Blackpool and also the civil servants. When we were considering the problem I tried to see whether it was humanly possible either to write in a power to discriminate, by schedule, as has been suggested today, or, even better, a power to discriminate between lettings of the kind made in seaside resorts and lettings of the kind which cause trouble in the slums. The more we looked at the matter the more impossible it was to make a distinction, because the crafty landlord in the slum will use all the tricks in the trade every time we try to define the lettings with which we want to deal, and he will turn to other lettings and thus get round the law.
There was no way of outwitting the clever landlord of the furnished dwelling, so we have to use the blunt instrument of saying that all are stopped from evicting without a court order.
9.0 p.m.
The question we now have to ask ourselves is what is the actual risk to the good landlord or landlady in the seaside resorts. So far as I can understand it, the only increased risk that he or she has is that the court could be induced to give a person a two months or three months stay instead of the normal one month which is the maximum given under the existing law. This is the only extra risk. An hon. Member shakes his head. I am assuming that she is a decent landlady who does not evict by force, and who, if she wants to evict one of these tenants, takes him to law. If she has to take him to law the position will be that the court can postpone the stay of execution longer than before.
When I look at the instructions which we give to the court on this subject, it is crystal clear and written into the Bill that this kind of tenant will be given short shrift under this Bill.
If there is one thing absolutely clear in reading the Clauses through, it is that in dealing with the kind of person who takes a winter letting in a seaside resort and over-stays his welcome into the summer, no county court when he appears before it would conceivably give him anything more than the minimum stay of execution.
The only difference is that introduced by an hon. Member opposite when he talked about incitement to tenants and said that there was a kind of provocation. If hon. and learned Gentlemen make long speeches here describing what clever tenants can do to exploit this Bill against their landladies and get their views printed in the local papers, and if they use the House of Commons to spread propaganda of that sort, I cannot be responsible for the effect that they have. If the tenants believed them and took them seriously some crooked people would have been given some pretty shrewd ideas of how tenants could outstay their welcome successfully.
If such tenants listen to me they will be very careful about staying at all because they will know from me that this Bill does not give them any licence or any extension of their freedoms of any kind which could really seriously undermine the defences of the good landlord or the good landlady of furnished rooms.
I apologise to the House for being a little long, but this has been a long and interesting debate and I thought it essential to put the point of view not only of the Government but of all reasonable, decent people who want to give the good landlord a good chance and enable the good landlord to get rid of the bad tenant. We want to do all that, but we are also determined, in this short Bill, to prevent tenants being evicted before the big Bill is passed. That is the point of this Bill.
I can say to the House with absolute conviction that we can safely reject these Amendments because this talk of the terrible threat to seaside resorts was a grave mistake by hon. Members opposite who represent them. It is untrue, it is a gross exaggeration of what is happening,


it does no good to their constituencies, it misleads ordinary people, and I am glad to have the opportunity at this Dispatch Box of saying what is really true about the situation and putting things straight.

Mr. Roots: I cannot help feeling that the House will think that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was unfortunate in the light of the debates which we have had on this Bill. The fact of the matter is that it was a period of non-sequiteurs. He started by asking us to believe, and we were prepared to believe, that he had considered the risks to Service landlords and landlords and landladies generally. Then he proceeded to attack hon. Members who represent constituencies where these problems will be particularly felt for indulging virtually in agitation to create difficulties. He has only to consider that he told us, or he now tells us, that he recognised that there would be difficulties before ever they spoke.
These hon. Gentlemen have spoken on fears and complaints conveyed to them by constituents. If they were trumpery, it is curious that the right hon. Gentleman's mind should have run to them as well. He has admitted that there was a difficulty here, that a number of quite innocent people would suffer, and that he could not find a way round. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the right hon. Gentleman had not thought that they would suffer, he would not have poured crocodile tears and a lot of work allegedly into trying to help them.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted Scots law, but he would have done better to await the presence of the Scottish Law Officers because, as I understand it, Scots law does not at present include any right of suspension. It is true that one needs an order for eviction, but there is no power of suspension such as is given in the present Bill. Under English law, similarly, there is an adequate procedure for immediate eviction under the High Court order of which we have heard.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. and learned Gentleman talks rather hastily about what can happen under Scots law. When a case like this is brought before him, the sheriff has the right to

allow a stay of eviction, and the average is about five weeks.

Mr. Roots: The right hon. Gentleman has only to think that, if the power under Scots law were really as adequate as he suggests, it would not be necessary to include Scotland in this Bill. In fact, the position under Scots law is quite different and is not what is now sought.
If there is no problem, why was the right hon. Gentleman worried about it? Why did he try, as he said, to find a solution? The real weakness in his case is that he tried and could not find a solution, and he will not listen to any suggestions from this side of the House. He has not sought to answer Amendment No. 19 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) spoke. This would meet the case of the holiday letting, and it would also assist as regards lettings by Service owners. But it has been rejected virtually out of hand.
The right hon. Gentleman has rejected the regional approach. It is admitted that the problem in terms of furnished lettings is largely a regional one, but the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, rejected the regional solution because he thought that furnished and unfurnished lettings ought to march together. It is no good weeping crocodile tears of sorrow for the good landlord, the good landlady and the good Service tenant if he simply says that he will not consider differentiating, although arguments have been advanced in the House and not answered to show that regionalisation in terms of furnished lettings, at his discretion, would give a just solution for both landlord and tenant.
As far as I could gather, this solution has been rejected because the right hon. Gentleman doubted—I certainly do not agree—that he would get the Bill by Christmas. In fact, there is an appropriate Amendment on the Notice Paper. It would not delay the passage of the Bill one minute, and, on the other hand, it would achieve what my right hon. and hon. Friends have sought to do, that is, not to impede the general principle of the Bill but to provide justice for those who will be unnecessarily harmed by it. There may be some who have to be harmed, but many will be unnecessarily harmed by the Bill.
I very much regret in the circumstances—because I had understood that on both sides of the House it had been conceded that everyone has attempted to make this a workable and sensible Bill—that, in the light of the Minister's reply, I cannot do other than ask my

right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 237.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[9.10 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Astor John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Awdry Daniel
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Barlow, Sir John
Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Batsford Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Berkeley, Humphry
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, John


Bingham R. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Blaker Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pounder, Rafton


Box, Donald
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hay, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Brewis, John
Hendry, Forbes
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hill J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Roots, William


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Sir Eric
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Gordon
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.)
Jennings, J. C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Talbot John E.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kilfedder, James A.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Curran, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Walder, David (High Peak)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Stephen
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mc Adden, Sir Stephen
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Errington, Sir Eric
Maitland, Sir John
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Marlowe, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Forrest, George
Mathew, Robert
Webster, David


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus E. U.
Whitelaw, William


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gammans, Lady
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gardner, Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wylie, N. R.


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman



Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Monro, Hector
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, W. G.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry
Orbach, Maurice


Albu, Austen
Grey, Charles
Orme, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Alldritt, W. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Paget, R. T.


Atkinson, Norman
Hannan, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harper, Joseph
Pargiter, G. A.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Barnett, Joel
Hattersley, Ray
Parkin, B. T.


Baxter, William
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Heffer, Eric S.
Pentland, Norman


Bence, Cyril
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Perry, E. G.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Bessell, Peter
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Binns, John
Horner, John
Rankin, John


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Redhead, Edward


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Rees Merlyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Reynolds, Gerald


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Boston, T. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rose, paul B.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Robert


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Buchanan, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Chapman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Leadbitter, Ted
Snow, Julian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ledger, Ron
Solomons, Henry


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Steele, Thomas


Cronin, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Crosland, Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stonehouse, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Dalyell, Tem
Lubbock, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Darling, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McBride, Neil
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, James
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McGuire, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McInnes, James
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dempsey, James
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thornton, Ernest


Dodds, Norman
McLeavy, Frank
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
MacMillan, Malcolm
Tomney, Frank


Driberg, Tom
MacPherson, John E.
Tuck, Raphael


Dunn, James A.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
Mason, Roy
Wallace, George


Ennals, David
Mellish, Robert
Warbey, William


Ensor, David
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, Tudor


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitlock, William


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Molloy, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Monslow, Walter
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Ford, Ben
Neal, Harold
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Newens, Stan
Winterbottom, R. E.


Freeson, Reginald
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Norwood, Christopher
Wyatt, Woodrow


Garrett, W. E.
Oakes, Gordon
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Garrow, A,
Ogden, Eric



George, Lady Megan Lloyd
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ginsburg, David
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Mr. McCann and




Mrs. Harriet Slater.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 20, in page 4, line 6, to leave out lines 6 to 15 and to insert:

(d) a tenancy to which any of the following Acts apply, that is to say—



(i) the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931;


1949 c, 25
(ii) the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland> Act 1949;


1949 c, 75
(iii) the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949;



(iv) the Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961.

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 25, applies to the whole Bill the definition of "tenant" in Clause 1(5). By this definition the term "tenant" is applied to any person who occupies an agricultural tied house under the terms of his employment. As a result of that Amendment, Clause 3(1,d), as originally drafted, would exclude from the Bill tied houses on tenanted farms.

By this Amendment Clause 3(1,d) has been rewritten to make it clear beyond doubt that the tenancies excluded by it are only those which are already protected under the separate codes specifically referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv). In particular, subparagraph (iii) excludes the tenancy of a complete farm but will not now exclude a tied house on the farm.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(THE COURT.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 31, at the end to insert:
(3) Where, by virtue of section 1(3) of this Act, it is not lawful for the owner of any premises to enforce against the occupier his right to recover possession of the premises except by proceedings in the county court, but the High Court has before the commencement of this Act made an order for possession in proceedings by the owner against the occupier, the order shall, on application made by the owner to the county court, be treated for the purpose of execution as if the proceedings had been taken in. and the order made by, the county court, and section 2 of this Act shall have effect accordingly.
This Amendment adds a new subsection dealing with what happens when High Court proceedings have begun before the coming into force of the Bill. My right hon. Friend promised at an earlier stage to see what could be done to make the position clear about the

transfer of authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been able to do some work on this, and he would like to assist the House in the matter.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity and for enabling me to get off with being a minute late. As my hon. Friend has said, the Amendment arises from consideration which has been given to the position where, before the Bill comes into effect, proceedings for possession have been instituted in the High Court.
With this Amendment it may be convenient also to consider Amendment No. 23, in Clause 6, page 4, line 43, at end insert:
(3) Any proceedings in the High Court by an owner against an occupier for possession of premises to which this Act on the date on which it comes into operation applies and in which no order or judgment has been made or given by the High Court before such date shall be transferred to the appropriate county court; the Rules of the Supreme Court and of the county court shall provide for the transfer of the pleadings and files therein to the said county court and for the continuation of the action in such county court.
in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), which deals with a similar situation. It is necessary to deal with cases of this kind because, when the Bill comes into force, it will be a criminal offence to evict an occupier of premises to which the Bill relates, except on the authority of the county court. Undertakings were accordingly given in Committee to consider the position.
The Amendment in my right hon. Friend's name deals with cases where an order for possession has already been made by the High Court. During the Committee stage it was pointed out that if this situation were not expressly dealt with in the Bill, the occupier would have to start his proceedings all over again in the county court, which, clearly, would be a very undesirable situation.
The effect of this Amendment is to enable the owner of premises to apply to the county court for a High Court order made but not executed on the coming into operation of the Bill to be treated for the purposes of execution as if it had been made in the county court. The county court will be obliged to accede to


this application. The application will be made in the court office and there will not be the necessity for a hearing in court in relation to the application. The order will then be treated as if it had been made by the county court before the commencement of this Bill and therefore it can be executed as a county court order without any offence being committed against the provisions of the Bill.
I should remind any of my hon. Friends who may be disturbed by that observation that, because the provisions of Clause 2 will be attracted by the Amendment, it will be open to the occupier of the premises to apply to the county court to exercise its powers to suspend the execution of the order. Reading the Report of the Committee stage discussions, I think it was the general feeling of the Committee that this was the objective at which we should aim.
Amendment No. 23 deals with a situation in part similar, that is the position where proceedings have been commenced in the High Court but no order has been made. We have looked into the matter and have come to the conclusion that no provision in the Bill is necessary to deal with that situation. Under Section 50 of the County Courts Act, 1959, either party can apply to the High Court for an action to be tried by the county court. Section 77 of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed when such an application is made. The Amendment seeks to produce this same result by an automatic transfer of the High Court proceedings into the county court and, superficially, this would be a very attractive proposition, were it workable. It would be an advantage if a transfer could take effect without any action by the parties and without any further reference to the court by way of application in the court. But, unfortunately, what is proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington is not practicable, for a reason which he and his hon. Friends will readily anticipate.
It is that this Bill deals only with premises which are within the jurisdiction of the county court, that is to say, premises with a rateable value not exceeding £400. As the House will know, the jurisdiction of the High Court in an action for possession is unlimited and for this reason the pleadings in the action do not

contain any indication of the rateable value of premises which are the subject of an action for possession. It follows from this, therefore, that some evidence of rateable value would have to be given to the High Court before the case was transferred to the county court. Therefore, some form of application to the High Court by one of the parties is inevitable. Accordingly, for these reasons, in our view the Amendment is unnecessary and, what is perhaps a worse objection, misconceived.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having tabled the Amendment. The moral of this seems to be for my hon. Friends not to bother about drafting Amendments, but to raise these points in Committee on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." This was a point which I raised in that way, when I pointed out an unfortunate error in the Bill.
At that time there was not a Law Officer on the Government Front Bench—certainly not a Law Officer who was awake—and the error would not have been noticed had my hon. Friends not drawn attention to it at that stage. I am grateful for the realisation by the Government, even at this late stage of the Bill, that they are not perfect in the drafting of the Measure and that there are some Clauses which can be improved, this being one of them. The Amendment will be of assistance in practice and I am glad that it has come forward.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is wrong in saying that it was not noticed on this side of the House. It was.

Amendment agreed to.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am privileged to be moving the Third Reading of the Bill. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Minister for having given me this privilege because, as the House knows, I also spoke on Second Reading. Winding up the proceedings on a Bill of this sort is for me a great honour and to have the Bill reaching this stage is a great privilege for my hon. Friends as well as for many hon. Members opposite.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House represent constituents to whom the Bill will be of material assistance. It is hard to estimate the number of people who will be helped as a result of the passage of the Measure. From the figures I have obtained from the Department, I estimate that about 1,300,000 people in Britain are at present decontrolled tenants, many of them in that position as a consequence of the previous Administration's 1957 Rent Act.
Just prior to taking office we made it clear in our manifesto that we would repeal the Rent Act, the Measure which has resulted in so much injustice. I have no doubt that when the results of the General Election were announced many landlords, in anticipation of the Rent Act being repealed, immediately moved into action and served notices to quit on many of their tenants.
I said on Second Reading, and I repeat, that many hon. Members, including many on the benches opposite, could supply personal evidence of considerable numbers of their constituents who have received notices to quit and who face a very bleak Christmas indeed. It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend, knowing that a Measure to repeal the Rent Act must necessarily take some time—probably two or three months before being produced, and then having to pass through its various stages, involving perhaps another four or five months before it could become law—realised that it was essential, based on the advice he was given not only by his Department but by individual hon. Members pleading for assistance for their constituents, to introduce this Measure. He had the courage to introduce this emergency legislation which, certainly from the point of view of my hon. Friends, is a welcome Measure indeed.
We have had a number of detailed criticisms. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has many times said that the Bill is badly drafted, but to many of us on this side its main principles are about as good as they could be—

Mr. Temple: The hon. Member has just been referring to the drafting of the Bill. Will he, in the course of his re-

marks, refer to the position of caravans under this Measure?

Mr. Mellish: With very great respect, I can, on Third Reading, only speak of the Bill as it now is. Amendments dealing with caravans were not acceptable to the Chair in the Committee stage. I want to talk of the broad aspects, as I believe that the Bill affects the vast majority of people. I do not deny, we never have denied, that there is always the possible danger that in its implementation a few people might get hurt. Neither do I deny, that, for the first time in many years, there has been a tilt in rent legislation towards the tenant. I do not apologise for that, because for too long our legislation has been tilted in favour of the landlord.
The proof of that is the extent of homelessness in some of our great cities. We did not know what it was to have the problem of homelessness in London until after the 1957 Rent Act came into operation, and for most of this year we have been receiving an average of 60 or 70 homeless families a week. About 6,000 people have been declared homeless, the vast majority as a consequence of the Rent Act passed by the previous Administration. Something had to be done to stop that situation continuing, and I believe that the Bill we have produced will mean that thousands of people in our great cities and towns will now have a security of tenure denied them in the past.
We found the party opposite to be in an impossible position on Second Reading and it is again in that position now. This Bill is really the beginning of the end of the Rent Act, of which so much fuss was made. It was to solve the housing problem. Houses were to become empty overnight and so provide accommodation for those with the greatest need. That has all been proved to be absolute rubbish. That Act stopped the mobility of very many thousands of tenants who previously used to move to one property from another, and it brought in its train all the hardships of which we have heard.
It is interesting to know that one of the most powerful advocates of this Measure has been the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Lichfield) who, from the Opposition benches, bitterly criticised his own previous


Administration for not having themselves brought in such a Measure. I said then and I repeat it, that such speeches come rather late in the day to save some of the misery of so many people. In commending this Bill to the House, we believe that it will be welcomed by the vast majority of those threatened by the 1957 Rent Act.
In Committee, we discussed furnished accommodation, with particular reference to seaside flats. I recognise that there may be some landladies who will be understandably worried by the possibility of tenants taking advantage of this Bill to move into flats like that, and try to retain the tenancies for such a period of time as to destroy those lettings that provide a living at the seaside. That might happen in one or two cases, but I do not think that it will be anything like the general complaint feared and expressed by hon. Members opposite.
I honestly do not believe that. I cannot believe that there are hundreds of people in London just waiting for the chance to go to Blackpool, and to stay there. I do not believe that they will go into that sort of accommodation—these flatlets—stay there, defy the landlady, and then be taken to court in the knowledge that the magistrate or judge will decide against them. Many of the fears expressed will not be realised. One of the things that came out clearly on Second Reading and throughout the proceedings was that perhaps the worst feature of the present system was the letting of furnished accommodation. Every one of us knew that this had to be tackled and dealt with.
I never knew that there were so many landlords who were good people who were suffering so much financially. This Bill was never designed to hurt the good landlord. I do not believe it will worry them for one moment. The good landlord never has to have recourse to the law. The Bill was never designed to touch them, but only to hurt the minority of bad landlords. It is our belief that in furnished letting accommodation we have the greatest number of offenders. In the great cities this has been a means for exploiting the tenant. The landlord puts in a little furniture and a strip of carpet which is not worth anything and calls it a furnished letting. Every hon. Mem-

ber representing a constituency in a city or town knows this to be true.
My right hon. Friend had to bring in furnished accommodation. When we have the major Bill the sort of furnished accommodation in seaside flats and so on which has been spoken about will certainly be looked at because the last thing my right hon. Friend or this party wants to do is to hurt the landlord of the genuine type of furnished lettings at the seaside or a genuine flat which the owner wishes to let for a short period. But this Bill will deal quite emphatically and properly with the sort of person who has made furnished accommodation a racket. If in doing this we upset one or two hon. Members opposite and a few landladies we do not apologise. We do not apologise because in homeless units we see hundreds of British people who are without a roof over their heads. They have committed no crime, but they are there because they could not get proper furnished accommodation. This Bill was justified for that reason.
We were told that we were wrong to bring in provisions for agricultural workers. My right hon. Friend brought in the agricultural worker because the Labour Party has for years said that we believe the agricultural worker in the tied cottage has had a raw deal. He had the right to security of tenure and to insist on the owner of the property going to court. We are not concerned here with the decent farmer but with a few bad ones. The decent farmer need not worry about this Bill.
This Bill is a temporary Measure. We expect that in a few months it will be replaced and overtaken by a major Bill. In the meantime it will give to many people the security of tenure which they have a right to expect. By giving the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, the House can send it to another place with the message that we want to see it on the Statute Book before Christmas because speed is imperative. The Commons regards this Bill as one of the most important we could bring before Parliament at this time because of the thousands of people involved who are crying out for the security of tenure that the Bill will give.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is customary when a Bill has had the full and proper discussion which this one has had for speeches on the Third Reading to be mercifully brief and of as amiable a character as possible. In the light of that tradition I searched my mind for something agreeable to say about this Bill at this stage, but the only thing I could find was that it is at any rate a less bad Bill than when it was introduced.
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, reference has been made in our discussions to the drafting of the Bill. I have not for many years seen a Bill presented so badly drafted as this one. That is evidenced by the very large number of drafting Amendments it has been necessary to make during our proceedings. Those Amendments ensure that those who will have to interpret the Measure will have a less difficult task than they would have had had the House and the Committee not done their duty by the Measure.
I do not propose to rehearse again the arguments which were adduced on the main issues of the Bill. I must take up the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the homeless. The implication of what he said was that the Bill will diminish the number of homeless. Will it? Will it increase in any degree the total of accommodation, which is the only way in which homelessness can be dealt with? There are features of the Bill which make it the more likely in some respects that the supply of accommodation will be diminished rather than increased. Though I fully understand the Parliamentary Secretary's feelings, I ask him to reflect that legislation does not always have the effect for which it is designed, and it is our experience of controls in this and other spheres that they often have the unhappy side effect of diminishing the supply of the thing being dealt with.

Mr. Mellish: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the figures of the number of homeless in London, but he will probably know them. These figures are certainly available to members of his own party who are members of the London County Council. The figures are broken down to show how these people have come to be homeless,

for what reason? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the figures of the past and the present figures. That will provide the answer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer is a little more difficult than that, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, if he reflects. Whether it is in this great city or in the country as a whole, the problem of homelessness is dealt with only by increasing and making fully available the sum total of accommodation. Therefore, the only relevance of the problem of the homeless to the Bill is whether the Bill when enacted will increase or diminish the sum total of accommodation available. It seems to many of us that the effect of the Bill—not the purpose, but the effect—particularly perhaps in regard to furnished lettings, will be to diminish rather than increase the supply.
There was one hopeful moment in the course of our discussions. It was in the speech of the Minister on an Amendment earlier this evening. The right hon. Gentleman then indicated that, though the Bill itself is on a universal national approach, he did not wholly reject the idea of a regional treatment of the problem. I was glad to hear that. I am sure that the whole House was glad to hear it. Many of us who have thought upon the problem a good deal are becoming more and more convinced that some measure of differentiation in the treatment of the problem in different parts of the country will make for its more effective treatment.
In those circumstances, I particularly regret the fact that, for reasons which seemed to me wholly unsubstantial, the right hon. Gentleman did not translate that bit of forward thinking into an Amendment. It would have been a better Bill and I do not believe that it would have been delayed a day. I think that those who have studied the problem will agree with me about that.
As the House knows, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I approach the Bill with two thoughts in mind. First, as I said on Second Reading, we accept that, in the light of the problem created by the Government's announcement of their intention to repeal the Rent Act, because it was that which created the problem, it was necessary to provide something on the lines of Clause 1 to prevent a minority of landlords, in apprehension of the right


hon. Gentleman's forthcoming Measure, unnecessarily and unfairly evicting tenants. We said that on Second Reading and I gave an undertaking, which has been carried out, that, though, in view of many of its terms, the Bill would have to be critically examined, it would be subjected to no undue delay. For that reason, it is certainly not our intention to divide against its Third Reading.
I must also make it very clear that we regard many parts of the Bill as being wholly extraneous to that purpose. We remain utterly convinced that that emergency purpose, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, has little, if anything, to do with the provisions in respect of agricultural tied cottages and furnished lettings. Whatever the merits or demerits of these proposals, they are proposals which could well have been—and more fairly have been—put forward on another Measure. That is the view which we have consistently expressed throughout the debate. As I said, it is not—

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in previous legislation of this kind to stop rackets, the main effect has been to stop the rackets without involving people in legislation at all? The fact that the Bill is on the Statute Book will make these people reasonable and make landlords come to reasonable terms with their tenants. The owner will never have to go to court at all, in the vast multitude of cases.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a very interesting intervention. Its precise relevance to what I was saying—or, indeed, to the Third Reading—is perhaps more arguable.
What we were concerned about was that the particular provisions which I mentioned are not consistent with the proclaimed initial purpose of the Bill, the purpose in respect of which the Minister appealed for our co-operation in its passage and the reason which the Minister himself gave for its being put through Parliament speedily. I must make this clear. The fact that, for this reason, we have given not too difficult a passage and one without unnecessary division to this Measure in these circumstances does not indicate that when some of the features of this Bill are reflected—as we are told they will be—in a further Measure, that Measure or that part of it will receive

similar treatment. It would be unfair to the Minister to leave him in any misunderstanding about that.

Mr. Crossman: I never thought that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is capable of so many misapprehensions that I thought that I would relieve him of one. Though we have improved this Bill, it is in many respects not a good Bill, and even the greatest supporters of the Government would not say that it was the jewel of this Sessions' legislative programme.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but I cannot, in view of the speech which we have just listened to from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), let his remarks pass without comment. To say that this Bill was made necessary by any action on the part of this party or this Government is so absurd that we ought to refute it immediately. I congratulate my hon. and right hon. Friends on having brought it in now and on having passed this Measure, which I hope will undo a great deal of the evil which was brought about by the party opposite when it was in office.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I rise to speak on the Bill as amended. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the proof of the Bill will be in its operation as an Act. It is most unusual, but we have already in my constituency put the Bill to the test. I have listened to the debate on this Bill, particularly on the Second Reading and in Committee, and again today. I fully appreciate the need for the Bill if the period preceding the repeal of the Rent Act is not to be abused by an unscrupulous minority of landlords.
At the same time I believe that the Bill as amended will prove to have very serious deficiencies. Although it is intended to be purely a temporary Measure, it could have been used to advantage if it had been sufficiently widely drawn. The aim of the Bill has been stated to be the prevention of mass evictions in a very short period of time. My constituency is faced with a special problem which has led to the close examination of the provisions of this Bill, because


we had hoped that we might be able to make use of it immediately.
A large firm in my constituency has ceased operation. In several streets there are rows of houses held on service tenancies. These houses are now up for sale. Should the firm give these service tenants notice to quit, they will be without protection when this sale is completed, and this in a town with a dreadful housing shortage. Even if the firm does not do this and sells with sitting tenants, accepting a lower price, some of the tenants who have already been given notice to quit because they have accepted alternative employment will be faced with the same threat of eviction that I have mentioned because they have been given notice to quit prior to the sale. It may be possible through the efforts of the Mayor of Smethwick or myself to persuade the company not to take the action that I have mentioned.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Name the firm.

Mr. Griffiths: These efforts may be successful, but the fact is that when this Bill was tested it was found wanting. It has raised false hopes, and I think that is worse than raising no hopes at all. It could have been a useful weapon in the hands of those who are dealing with housing problems at a local level. Instead, the first time that it has come to be tested, it has proved to be something of a broken reed.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: In spite of the panic-stricken approach from the Deputy Chief Whip, I feel that I might be allowed to say a few words on the Bill at this late stage. If I have said nothing up to now in the debate, it is because I want to see the Bill through, and speed is the essence of it.
However, the Bill has a greater significance than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has shown in his speeches up to now. He has insisted on the temporary character of the Bill. To me it means the end of a barbarous and uncivilised practice of dumping people into the street, without any provision as to what shall happen to them, without any administrative follow-up of a legal process.
As this practice has done more than anything else to get the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seated where he is sitting now instead of on this side of the House, we are entitled to say that this is a change achieved by consent of public opinion in this country, manifested by the voices of many hundreds of thousands of people in parties other than my own—indeed, by representatives of property owners themselves—who want to see the end of this practice and who are prepared to concede that security of tenure must be re-established according to law.
The other day I came across a piece by Charles Dickens, written when he was doing propaganda for the abolition of public executions. It was the public aspect of it that moved him most. He said
I am solemnly convinced that nothing that ingenuity could devise to be done in this city, in the same compass of time, could work such ruin … I do not believe that any community can prosper where such a scene of horror and demoralisation … is passed by, unknown or forgotten.
There is this other side to it. We have heard a great deal of the sufferings of those who are evicted, but I am concerned with the demoralising effect on the public. It is astonishing that we should have become numbed into an acceptance of this process over the years, so that many other issues and other aspects of the law that might have been cleared up have been confused.
In the course of one of my election speeches in one of the crowded areas in my constituency, where I was giving one of my usual clear sociological exposés, an eviction scene took place within 100 yards of where I was speaking, and nobody took any notice. It was only at the point when violence was taking place, when one man was shaking pieces of milk bottle out of his hair, when another man had got a bent iron bar in his hand and three people, including a woman, were struggling on the ground that I hastened to intervene, and I was restrained by the passers-by who thought that it was wrong of me to get involved in such a commonplace scene. This was the normal practice. The story, when investigated, was of incredible complexity—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Protection from Eviction Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Parkin: The one point of interest in that complicated story possibly was that the landlord of the house had actually borrowed money from Paddington Borough Council to buy it, 194, Portland Road, and the council had taken no measure to ensure that the tenancy of the house was secure. The only question in this case was who had the stronger arm. These are acts of violence, demoralising to the public as well as to those who have to suffer. I hope therefore that we shall see the end of this practice now.
I am sorry to have to introduce a note of regret, more in sorrow than in anger, that the Minister was not able to make the provisions of the Bill apply to local authorities as well. It is very necessary in the course of the next year and the long discussions which will take place over the next rent Bill that it should be understood that this particular device for gaining a court warrant for dispossession by an officer of the court, without the provision of alternative accommodation, must cease and is excluded from any subsequent discussions. This has gone for ever, and local authorities must begin to get it into their heads that it is not available to them either. I can understand that in the haste in preparing the Bill, and I am as responsible as anyone else for that—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in order on Third Reading for an hon. Member to refer at length to matters which are not in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): It is not in order, and the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) must keep to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Parkin: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have been caught by

the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must get back to the subject matter of the Bill and not discuss the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

Mr. Parkin: If the hon. Member for Peterborough who asked you for that ruling had read the Bill he would have seen that in Clause 3(2) there is a specific reservation of the powers of the local authorities, and I should be much obliged if he would not interrupt again.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Am I to understand that the hon. Member for Paddington, North is contesting your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Paddington, North is, and I hope that he will be allowed to get on with his speech.

Mr. Parkin: We all understand that it is often necessary for warnings to be issued in Third Reading debates that hon. Members should kindly keep to what is in the Bill, but this is very revealing because it shows how the bureaucrats can smuggle their bits of algebra into these documents in defence of their own interests when nobody notices it. Clause 3(2) provides that
Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of the Small Tenements Recovery Act 1838 in so far as it has been applied by any other Act, or of section 22(2), 45(3) or 85(2) of the Housing Act 1957.
Section 22(2) of the Housing Act, 1957, applies to houses which have a demolition order on them. Section 45(3) refers to houses which have a clearance order on them, and Section 85(2) refers to houses which are overcrowded.
In each of these cases, unfortunately, it has been thought necessary to leave the law as it is. I can quite understand the circumstances. A lot of negotiating has to be done before one can secure an agreed amendment of local government legislation, but I should have expected the Minister to be as confident as I was that such practices on the part of local authorities would cease forthwith.
It was no pleasure to me—quite the contrary—to learn at mid-day last Thursday that the London County Council had taken out a sheriff's order to evict a woman from St. Philip's Place, Paddington,


on 11th December. I rang up the Parliamentary Secretary's Office, because he is the man who can speak sharply to various authorities in London, and I left a message that I hoped that this eviction would not take place and that, unless I got a message to that effect, I should raise the matter in the House of Commons. I felt quite certain that, after one telephone call, that would be the end of it.
A very curious thing happened. I got no response from the Parliamentary Secretary's office. This shows how these things can go on. I received a message rather later in the day to ring the private secretary to the Minister of Sport. This was after office closing hours, and I felt slightly flattered. I was sure that the Minister of Sport was to open a paddling pool or something in my constituency and I should be asked to be present.
The following morning I telephoned to the number I had been given and I collected a little lecture on the inevitability of the eviction of this lady. It had nothing whatever to do with the Department to which the Minister of Sport is attached in either a Parliamentary or a financial sense. It was a mistake by the channels of communication, but I could see how eager everyone was to get things off his Minister's desk. What made me angry was that it was said to me, "This woman has brought this on herself".

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he, for the record—I have no wish to enter into controversy about it—tell the House to whom he is referring when he mentions the Minister of Sport? I understood that there was no such gentleman.

Mr. Parkin: As I was about to say, there was a case for negotiation with this lady. I told her myself that, although I did not think that she need fear execution of the sheriff's warrant, she must at once make up her mind about which of the available dwellings she was able to take. There had been some confusion. A letter had been lost. A clearance scheme was to be carried out. But it is wrong to say that someone in these circumstances has "brought it on herself", when, without any wish of hers, she is to have her home compulsorily bought over her head—in this

case getting £115 for it—and is to be pushed somewhere else because the area is wanted for another purpose. It is a misuse of words to say that such people bring things on themselves. They do not. Someone has to speak up sometimes for the individual who can be caught in this kind of bureaucratic process.
I do not know whether I dare go further and tell the House about another case which I have put in the Minister's hands. Similarly, under a clearance order, there lives a lady who is so misguided as to keep a poodle. Her house is to be pulled down over her head, and she has been told that the rules for the alternative accommodation available do not permit poodles to be rehoused. There is all the difference in the world between applying for a council flat and being told what the rules are before one is accepted into it and having one's house pulled down over one's head, the authority being obliged to offer alternative accommodation suitable to one's needs.
I hope that I am not misusing this opportunity to say that it must be understood now that, in the course of the discussions, local authorities must get used to the idea that this particular practice is no longer available to them and they have to prepare a case to go before a court. In this case, it could probably have been settled in 10 minutes. The local authority would have produced evidence of the kind of alternative accommodation offered. It would have been granted possession on a certain date but the alternative accommodation would have been available.
Now this device for eviction is out for good. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his general intention. One of the difficult things in politics is that one can go for the crooks but so much evil is done by well-intentioned people who are being lazy and who are taking the easy way out. If we are to embark on a great new charter of landlord-tenant relations in order to get rid of thraldom, of exploitation and tyranny, we must see that those who are to administer the vast number of municipally-owned dwellings appreciate that they must be ready to meet many more varieties of personal need. We must establish certain basic rights of the individual. For


that reason, among many others, I welcome the Bill and rejoice in it.
I feel a little like Samuel Plimsoll who was, perhaps, an insufferable colleague in this House but who had perhaps one

moment when he felt that he had done something good.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — GAS INDUSTRY (BORROWING POWERS)

10.12 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): I beg to move,
That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
The Electricity and Gas Act, 1963, raised the limits of the gas industry's borrowing to £600 million and provided that the limit could be further raised to £650 million by order. In presenting this Order to the House, I think I should say how the industry has developed since we considered its borrowings during the passage of the Act.
I believe that it is a success story. At that time, the Gas Council supported its application to the House by a publication called "Gas Goes Ahead". The confidence expressed in that title has certainly been justified. In 1963, the industry had plans providing for an increase in gas sold of some 5 per cent. per year. This of itself was a very encouraging figure when one remembers that throughout the 1950s gas was hard-pressed to avoid a net loss in sales.
One can, therefore, congratulate the industry, firstly, on its optimistic outlook for the future at the time of the 1963 Act and, secondly, on what has happened since. To give an estimate at this stage of future growth is by no means easy. A great deal of the new business which the gas boards are now securing is for seasonal heating, which is very much affected by weather conditions. Although corrections for temperature can be applied there is within this position considerable margin for error and there are signs that heating standards are changing rapidly and, in the main, for the better. Also, the extent to which gas has already caught on varies from one part of the country to another. These and a number of other factors make forecasting a pretty risky business, but I think that we can with some confidence estimate that the rate of increase from now on will be about 7 or 8 per cent. per annum, which of itself is about half as much again as we expected as recently as 1963.
One may ask how this spectacular resurgence of gas has come about. To

those who remember the struggle which the industry was having, almost for survival, a few years ago, this is a most remarkable change. I suppose that basically the reason for the expansion is that the public, and I think particularly the householder as distinct from industry, have taken a new view of the prospects of the industry itself. I think that all of us have been impressed by the scheme to import liquid gas from Algeria, a scheme which has just begun to operate. This is an outstanding example of enterprise by a nationalised industry brought to fruition in co-operation with private concerns and, indeed, with international partnerships.
In addition, the last few years have seen the coming into operation of two important Lurgi plants for the total gasification of coal, and also the introduction of some very economical and flexible processes for making gas from light oil. On top of all that, there is the possibility of gas being found beneath the North Sea. Under these conditions, it is perhaps no wonder that the man in the street expects gas to be an increasingly competitive fuel.
It is a short step from that to expecting reductions in the price of gas. Indeed, I was asked a Question about this at Question Time today. This is an issue which is relevant indeed to the Order which I am now asking the House to accept. Like other businesses the area gas boards are meeting increased costs in labour, goods and services. In addition, capital charges are payable before the investment to which such capital charges relate can begin to bear fruit.
It is important to remember that as yet only a comparatively small proportion of our gas comes from what I might describe as the new low cost sources. At the same time, the industry has to make a suitable contribution to its own development, and perhaps I should mention here that it is now providing upwards of £50 million a year from its own resources, principally depreciation provisions and revenue surplus, which is about half of its annual investment needs.
Relating all that to the price of gas, I think it is pretty clear that there is, and may remain for some time, a transitional period during which the aim must


be to stabilise the price of this fuel. In fact over the last two years the overall price has increased by only a halfpenny per therm, which is a record comparable to that of any industry over the same period.
During the transitional period there may well be variations, according to the circumstances of individual boards. As the House knows, the industry is based far more on regions than on any central national control. We can have no doubt about the ultimate benefits of the investment which I am asking the House for tonight, in its effects on the financial stability of the industry. It will certainly lead to reductions in the average costs of making gas and to increases in the amounts of gas available to the British public.
The British winter is not to be underrated, and gas is a most suitable fuel for supplying the seasonal heating load. Per unit of output, the capital cost of the new gas-making plants is quite low, and the distribution is less affected by weather conditions than is the case with most other fuels.
The Order which we are now discussing is needed rather earlier than was expected when we debated the parent legislation, and I have no apologies to offer for that. The reasons for this are implicit in the increased rate of growth to which I have referred and the increased fixed and working capital which arise from it. It follows that the industry will fairly soon have to apply to Parliament for new legislation to extend its borrowing powers beyond the limits of the 1963 Act.
That will be an occasion for a more comprehensive look at the picture of the gas industry than I have given tonight, and at this stage I think that the House would not expect me to go beyond the rather short progress report that I have given.
Summing it up, this money is needed for investment in a growth industry which has an essential part to play in our fuel economy, both in industry and in the home, and I therefore commend the Order to the House.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: First, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to express our very warm

regret that a Measure of this importance should have been produced for the consideration of the House at this late hour. [Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may laugh, but we have had some experience of his dealing with these matters in the past. I am quite serious. The practice has been to divide into two parts the large sums of money which we lend to nationalised industries. It is one of those second tranches that we are dealing with tonight. The House of Commons is being asked, by way of affirmative Resolution, to give the Minister power to lend this further £50 million to a highly successful industry. I regard as quite monstrous the fact that at this hour we should have to be content with the extraordinarily meagre survey that we have had from the Minister.
It is wholly wrong that we should be asked to initiate and undertake a discussion of so large an industry as this at this hour. I do not believe for a moment that it is in the public interest that the House should deal so lightly with large sums of money, nor do I believe that this method of proceeding is anything but an affront to the House. We are asked in the most cursory way to apply a rubber stamp to what the Minister appears to suggest is simply a routine operation—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Do not talk such utter rot.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity to speak later. We have listened to him speak at great length in the past, and I do not doubt that we shall have an opportunity of listening to him tonight. But nothing he says is going to deter me from expressing my point of view and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
Lastly, I would say that the conduct of the Government on this occasion shows a very scant regard for this nationalised industry. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that his exceedingly brief survey has not left us any wiser than we were before. He told us that forecasting was a pretty risky business—I will come back to that point before I finish my remarks. The right hon. Gentleman played vaguely


with the idea that there might be a reduction at some time in the price of gas. He conducted an argument with himself which was brought to no conclusion. He referred, rather mysteriously, to a transitional period, during which the aim must be to stabilise the price of this fuel. He went on to use words indicating that the price had already been stabilised. He referred to the reduction in the average costs of making gas without leading us on to any conclusion from that.
The right hon. Gentleman continued that a new Act of Parliament would be necessary soon which would—we took comfort from this—give us a better opportunity to survey the state of the industry. I profoundly echo the hope of the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have a better opportunity of surveying the state of the industry than the one we are enjoying, or tolerating tonight. I should like something a little more precise from the right hon. Gentleman than the suggestion that soon it will be necessary to have another Bill before the House authorising increased borrowing. Perhaps he can tell us when.
May I interpolate that we welcome very much the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave at Question Time earlier today that the Government have decided to continue the policy—which was attacked very largely by hon. Members opposite when in Opposition—of financial objectives for these industries. As I endeavoured to suggest at Question Time, while we applaud his decision, we nevertheless extend him some sympathy in the difficult task which he may have of explaining this to some of his colleagues.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is not long ago that this industry appeared to be thoroughly moribund. Happily, however, the professional mourners have been proved wrong. They were premature in arriving at a decision that this industry had not any future. Instead, we have had remarkable developments such as Lurgi, methane, and the new oil-based processes, and, I think it fair to add, the skill and determination of those involved in the industry. I should like to take the opportunity to pay my tribute to Sir Henry Jones and Sir Kenneth Hutchison

particularly. By their tenacity, determination and skill they have seen that all the opportunities available to the industry were used and exploited to the maximum. I am certain that the whole House would agree that they had served this industry with very great distinction. Added to these new processes, which have opened up quite a new future for the industry, we have the prospects of Dutch gas and even new supplies which may be won from the North Sea.
I think that the progress of the industry may be measured very well by looking at the sales of appliances which over the first six months of the present financial year have shown, so far as space heaters are concerned, an 18 per cent. increase over the same period last year. One must always bear in mind that last year showed a marked increase over the year before. In addition, sales of central heating units have increased by about 14 per cent.
It is clear from these figures—and it would be possible to produce others like them—that the demand for gas is likely to expand. It is also clear that the new developments demand that we have a clear new look at the requirements of the industry. Very high on the list of priorities is, I believe, the project of underground storage. This is necessary if the industry is to make full use of its investments.
It is also necessary that there should be some amendment of the industry's structure. The Report of the Select Committee on the industry not long ago made the point perfectly clear that the Gas Council was woefully weak for the functions it was called on to perform. I think I am right in saying that a Bill is ready. Indeed, have not we been told that this is so? Are we now being told that this Bill is being put back; that no time can be found for a Measure which that Select Committee considered was necessary and desirable and that instead that time will be filled in with an iron and steel nationalisation Bill? The Minister laughs at that, but I hope that his laugh will be heard in the country, because what we are saying now, and we will go on saying it, is that the Government must realise that it is their duty to make sure that this and other industries already in public ownership are given every opportunity to succeed.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peyton: I am pleased to have that applause from hon. Members opposite. I will take time—and there is plenty of it—to remind them that this industry left the gloom and failure and emerged into a highly successful, modern, thriving industry under Tory administration. It was already under public ownership.
My hon. Friends and I are always being told—we have listened to this idiotic claptrap from hon. Members opposite for many a long day—that the Tory Party is somehow prejudiced against the publicly-owned industries. Yet it was during the period of Tory Administration that this industry embarked on a highly successful period of progress.
We hope that the Government will take seriously their responsibilities towards these industries and will do all they can to see that they have every chance of succeeding and every chance of prosperity—that is, before they conduct other ill-judged and ill-timed experiments in public ownership.
I hope that the Minister will give us his views on the subject of underground storage. Is it a necessary part of the gas industry's future progress and, if so, when will he make provision for it?
We should like to know when the Dutch gas is likely to be available, and at what price, and for what period. If recent Press reports that we are considering taking up to half our needs from Holland are true, can we be told how that supply will be married with supplies that may become available from the North Sea? We have not had from the Government or from the Minister any evidence that this matter has received the most careful consideration.
When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the industry to be able to provide substantially non-toxic gas? The development of the industry contains the seeds of some very serious problems for the coal industry. Some three years ago, 84 per cent. of our gas production was based on coal; in three years from now that figure will have dwindled dramatically to about 40 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that abort 50 per cent. of the gas Indus-

try's research programme is devoted to means of producing gas from coal?
Whatever may be the research position, the problem of the relationship between the gas and coal industries remains a serious one. Despite that problem, however, I hope that the Minister will not be led into arresting the gas industry's progress because of pressures on behalf of coal. He should emphatically reject any idea of giving to each industry a fixed share of the fuel market. We believe that all these industries should compete and, in competing, give the customer not only the best value for money but the widest freedom of choice.
We have had rather ominous references from the party opposite to the importance of a co-ordinated policy for the major fuel industries, and we have now come to the point when we must ask what that means. So far, we have not been told. if in 1955 we had had what I believe is meant by a co-ordinated policy for these industries, where would the gas industry have been today? I do not doubt that it would by now have been stagnating. It would certainly have gone beyond the point of no return. There would have been no dramatic recovery such as it has experienced.
A document entitled "Twelve Wasted Years", produced by the party opposite and published in September, 1963, contains the following paragraph:
In spite of representations from the coal industry, the gas industry is being allowed to go ahead with the production of gas from oil. These are the complications resulting from making two public authorities compete, when a positive programme of co-operation (e.g. siting Lurgi plants on coalfields and distributing the gas by high-pressure pipeline) could satisfy both the nation's fuel requirements and the stability of the industries concerned.
Does the right hon. Gentleman share the belief implicit in that paragraph that it is wrong to make two publicly-owned industries compete? I should like a clear answer to that question tonight. If we cannot get it tonight, we shall press for a clear answer unceasingly in future.
I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in confronting the admittedly complicated problems of the fuel economy of the country, will resist any


temptation he may have felt or still feels to regard himself as omniscient or to adopt a policy which implies an assumption of infallibility. None of us can see the future of this industry. Prophecies and guesses have been numerous and they have almost never been right. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to confess tonight that forecasting is a risky business. I hope, holding that belief as he does, he will not make the cardinal and almost unforgivable error of committing the fuel economy of this country to such a shaky and unfounded basis as a guess.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will refrain from putting the gas industry or any other fuel industry into a straitjacket. I hope, despite all that the party opposite has said, that he will adhere to the policy of allowing them to compete in order that they may better serve the public interest.
I end by repeating what I said at the beginning. I very greatly regret that this Measure should have been brought before the House at this late hour. I am sorry that the Minister apparently does not echo these sentiments. I believe that the standing of the House of Commons—if I may mention such a thing to such a Government—demands that we should be given a full opportunity of considering carefully the position and prospects of such an industry. I do not believe that conduct such as we have had from the Government in these circumstances is particularly flattering to an industry which I should have thought well deserving of warmer congratulations from the right hon. Gentleman.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: I suppose many hon. Members have said this before and many will say it again. I rise with a great deal of humility and a great deal of pride to make my first speech in this House. I do so on this Measure at this hour particularly because I have worked during most of my adult working life in nationalised industries. While I wish to avoid contention where possible, I can only observe that this gives me a somewhat different view from that held by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
I am proud to be in this House. I am proud to represent part of the City of Norwich. I can say no more than

that no man could feel happier to represent a finer or fairer city or be more proud of the confidence expressed by the electors.
The background of this request for additional borrowing powers is simple. It is the renascence of the gas industry. From 1950 to 1959 the sales of the industry remained virtually constant. Since 1959 the gas industry has shown a remarkable increase in sales. There is an explanation for this, an explanation—again I cannot avoid this point of contention—which cannot be gainsaid by a speech as inconsistent as the one made by the hon. Member for Yeovil.
If we go back to 1954, we find the first of the public estimates put forward by the Gas Council, estimating for 1959–60 the sale of slightly less than 3,000 million therms. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made the point that forecasting is a most uncertain business, and I know this well to my cost. The fact remains, however, that against that estimate of nearly 3,000 million therms, sales in 1960 amounted to 2,500 million therms. In other words, on that occasion the estimators shot high.
In February, 1960, a further publication appeared. All three publications to which I shall refer were, incidentally, published under the previous Government. For the first time in the history of the gas industry since the war, the February, 1960, publication began to stress the importance of using oil-based products—in other words, gas from oil. In this publication, the shift to oil is justified by arguments of the load factor type, that since oil plant is cheap capital-wise it is reasonable to install it, cutting the capital cost with plant to meet peak load. That is a legitimate argument; I do not think that many would argue against it. That same publication points out—and to do so within a matter of a few paragraphs is "sitting on the fence"—that one of the great things about gas is its importance to the nation in helping to extract the utmost value from coal.
What about the forecast that was put forward in February, 1960? The forecast for 1965–66 was slightly over 2,800 million therms, or a lower figure than the pundits six years previously had forecast for that same year of 1960. The forecast for domestic use was about 1,350 million therms. The interesting thing about this


forecast is that both these figures were exceeded in 1963 and 1964 and there is every indication that sales will continue to rise. Indeed, one of the few remarks made by the hon. Member for Yeovil with which I can agree was his comment that it looks as if the sales of gas will increase. My goodness, the industry's whole plan is based on that assumption. The plan for every other fuel industry is based on that assumption too.
We can, therefore, describe the estimate made in 1960 as a low shot; the forecasters shot low. One of the things about forecasting is that one cannot be right. if anyone could be right about forecasting, there would be no need to be a forecaster. There are other more profitable activities.
In October, 1963, the pamphlet "Gas Goes Ahead" was produced. That is a fair title. It describes what has happened in the gas industry. Gas has gone ahead. The previous estimate in 1960 was in terms of a 3 per cent. per annum increase in overall gas sales. In October, 1963, "Gas Goes Ahead" thought in terms of a 5 per cent. per annum increase in gas sales. Tonight, we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister that 5 per cent. is now reckoned to be low.
What is the reason for that? Is it, as the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested, because of a renascence in Government administration? I reject that suggestion, because in that case the hon. Gentleman must account for the previous nine years of stagnation in the industry. What has happened is that the gas industry has been able to shift from dependence upon one fuel. Unlike virtually any other industry, it has been able to shift away from its dependence upon coal and to move into cheap oil-type sources. This has freed the gas industry to adopt new price policies, which it has done.
We come back to the argument—unacceptable to hon. Members opposite but still true. Let us see the extent of this change. Perhaps I may burden the House with a few more figures. The measure of this change is shown by these gas industry figures for 1958–59 relating to new plant installed in the industry, the plant that commits one for the future. It shows the managerial type of decision that one is making, and one is, after all, committed to that plant.
In terms of million cubic feet of capacity, in 1958–59, 31 million cubic feet of carbonisation plant were installed; 71 million cubic feet of oil gasification plant; and other plant—mainly water gas and producer gas—about 5 million. Those figures already show a shift to oil compared with previous years. In the last year for which figures are available, 1963–64, the figures for new carbonisation plant installed were 1 million for coal carbonisation, 262 million for oil gassification and for the other category 92 million.
This is the extent of the shift away from coal. An industry which in the middle 1950s was using 28 million tons of coal, is now using 21 million tons of coal and by the 1970s, on the most optimistic estimate, will be using 14 million tons of coal. In the context of Great Britain's current fuel situation this seems to me to be a curious arrangement. It is the explanation of the gas industry's success, of its promotional tariff and of its freedom to advertise. It is, I think, a most compelling argument—and this is why I have strayed into the field of contention in this speech—for some sort of complete re-think about the co-ordination of the various fuel industries in this country. On that point I could not be more wholeheartedly in support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.
In asking for the indulgence of the House in having perhaps spoken more strongly than one should in his first speech, my reason is that I work in the fuel industry and there is a tremendous amount to be said for the policy put forward by my right hon. Friend.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am very happy to have the duty and the pleasure of congratulating the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood), as a Member from the gas industry, on his very thoughtful speech.

Mr. Norwood: I am very sorry, but I must make it plain that if I said that it was a slip of the tongue. I am from the fuel industry—the coal and electricity industries.

Mr. Lloyd: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for making that mistake. It is true to say that every hon. Member enjoyed his speech very


much and will look forward to hearing him speak on fuel problems on other occasions.
We on this side of the House are very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Order, but we are scandalised that he should do so at this hour of the night in view of the fact that it deals with a huge sum of money which ought to be spent on making a further major breakthrough in the magnificent progress of the gas industry in recent years.
The Minister said that a remarkable change had occurred in the gas industry in the last five years. In saying that, he was paying tribute to the progress of the gas industry under a Conservative Government. If I may say so, I resent very much the attitude of hon. Members opposite, because I would remind some of them, and particularly some of the older Members and those in the miners' group, that I was the first Minister of Fuel and Power after the Labour Government of 1945–51 and that Sir Winston Churchill said that while we were opposed to further nationalisation and although, as he said in his inimitable words, it might somewhat mar the symmetry of party controversy, it was our job to do the best we could for the industries that were nationalised at the time.

Mr. Popplewell: The House is much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing to its attention the fact that he was the first Tory Minister of Fuel and Power to operate the nationalised gas undertaking. Are we to take it that he was responsible for the ten years of stagnation in the industry and that it was possible only in the last four or five years, after he had left office, to make progress?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall address myself to that very point. I prefer to take the history of the industry farther back than four years. I think not so much of a remarkable change in the past five years but of an entire transformation in the past ten years. Ten years ago, the gas industry was facing a bleak outlook. It was completely tied to coal. The cost of coal was going up rapidly each year. Gas and coking coals were becoming increasingly scarce, and the National Coal Board took the view, therefore, that cok-

ing coal must bear a large increase in price. This was a source of deep frustration to the gas industry, and the outlook was very bad.
I well remember the chairman of the North Thames Gas Board, now Sir Michael Milne-Watson, coming to see me in 1955 and, in the context of the fuel shortage, speaking of the possibility of bringing to this country in tankers natural gas frozen to a temperature of—260 degrees Fahrenheit and using it to supply our towns here. The House will understand what a daring conception that was at the time. Nevertheless, I encouraged him to go ahead because I could see what the possibilities were.
It is of interest to know how the project began. A big industrialist in Chicago, Mr. Wood Prince, felt that he was being squeezed by the natural gas suppliers of that area, and he determined to free himself by a ruthless pursuit of the principle of competition. He decided to be the first man in the world to buy gas down in the Gulf of Mexico and to bring it up the Mississippi in special ships. Very hazardous procedures were involved. Nothing like it had been undertaken before. Mr. Prince decided to make special ships with balsa wood as insulation, as steel becomes very soft, almost soft as paper, at such low temperatures, and he carried out experiments in the Louisiana Flats. I arranged, in concert with the chairman of the gas board, that British safety engineers from the Ministry of Transport should go across and familiarise themselves thoroughly with the dangers and the safety precautions which might be necessary for this new method of transporting methane so that, if we were able later to proceed with it, we should be well acquainted with the safety precautions necessary in this hazardous enterprise and be able to proceed faster.
All this helped the industry a great deal. Afterwards, there were difficult negotiations involving the oil companies, and, eventually the consortium was formed which finally brought matters to success. The gas industry deserves great congratulation for its enterprise, and so do the big companies which have worked with it.
The question of the gas grid then immediately arose. It would not be worth while bringing in great quantities


of natural gas if it could be used only in one area. The industry was, therefore, led right on to the next great development, the gas grid, which everyone agrees has been a great success.
A new era opened for the gas industry. The existence of supplies of methane and the establishment of the gas grid put the gas industry in a favourable bargaining position with the petroleum companies when it came to make agreements about the light petroleum distillates, the next important development.
First of all, we have the I.C.I. reforming process which is the basis of most of the gas production from oil at the present time and which is very successful. Then we are glad to know—and I am especially proud of this—that a great deal of research work has been done by the gas industry in its research institute in the West Midlands, very near Birmingham. There, the scientists have found what they believe to be an even better process, the catalytic rich gas process.
Alas, we are disappointed that their equally enterprising experiments to find a way of gassifying low grade coal have not so far been successful, but one is glad that they are continuing with this research. We hear of even more possibilities—of oil from the North Sea and of a deal with the Dutch. We do not know the details, but they are obviously big possibilities.
But the industry having taken these several large leaps forward in technical progress, there remains one very important development which will crown all these others and bring them to full fruition, both for the industry and the consumer. This is underground storage.
The industry has done a great deal of research into this. It knows that it is technically possible. That side is well worked out. What is necessary is legislative provision to enable the work to be done. We know from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—and the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed it—that a Bill is ready now which would enable this great work to continue and to continue fast. We are very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman, in a somewhat pedestrian statement on the state of the industry at the present time, never once looked

ahead, never once saw the vision of the Britain that the Prime Minister has spoken about.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he came in while I was speaking?

Mr. Lloyd: I was here the whole time. I never heard the right hon. Gentleman putting forward and saying what further great progress would be made if underground storage could be brought in. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill and bring it in fast. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be prepared to support it and give it a good passage so that the industry could fulfil its promise.
But instead of working hard on such a Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is spending his time on fulfilling what The Times calls the symbolism the Government need—the Iron and Steel Bill. If the Government put in more work on a gas storage Bill, they would serve the country better. If they do not bring in such a Bill they will be betraying the gas industry and greatly hurting the interests of the gas consumers.
This is important not only for householders. It is equally important industrially, as I appreciate, coming as I do from the West Midlands, which is the greatest consumer of industrial gas in the country and where gas plays an enormous part in the annealing of metals for the big Birmingham metal companies. It is very important that we should have the benefit from underground gas storage.
By providing gas storage on a big scale we can take advantage of gas in a way that the electricity industry cannot take advantage of electricity. The stored gas would enable the gas industry to continue at an even pace throughout the year, using accumulated stored gas when necessary in winter. This is just the sort of thing the Prime Minister has asked us to consider in moving into the modern, technological age with capital intensified industries and reduction of costs.
It is gas storage which will enable the country to get the real benefits of the previous fine progress in the industry and give the consumers the opportunity of possible price reductions. The figures are very impressive. From coal carbonisation a therm of gas costs about 1s.;


from methane, 7½d.; from these new gas processes only 5½d. The figures speak for themselves. I appreciate the caution of the industry, and indeed of the right hon. Gentleman when he talks with authority and responsibility about the possibilities of price reductions, but the figures speak for themselves. The hon. Member for Norwich, South showed how the industry is changing over from the 1s. a therm process to the 7½d. and 5½d. processes, and it is quite clear what the trend can be.
If we can add to the possibilities of price reductions the increased efficiency resulting from underground storage, we can then make real progress in a very important fuel for the householder, and in many parts of the country a basic fuel for industry as well. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to lose no time in bringing forward the Gas Storage Bill and to give it priority over the Iron and Steel Bill.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of the gas industry, and I appreciate the point that he is making about gas storage, but is it not true that for some considerable time the gas boards desired to store gas at Winchester? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why his Government never brought in the Bill to which he referred?

Mr. Lloyd: In this country every regard must be had to the susceptibilities of local objections, but I understand that that has now been surmounted and that the Bill is ready and would have been brought in.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: We are all very interested in the enthusiasm shown by the right hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) for the undertaking for which he had so much responsibility during the early days of the Tory Administration. I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) should charge the Government with neglect for not going ahead with the underground storage of gas. During 13½ years of Tory rule there was talk about the possibility of importing methane gas, but they

did nothing about storing it underground. It therefore ill becomes them to accuse the Government, after less than two months in power, during which time they have tried to restore the good name of this country—something which was necessary after the neglect and ineptitude shown by the Tory Administration—of neglect in dealing with this question. It is remarkable what a complete change-about there has been. It is astonishing what happens when the Tories are in Opposition.
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his knowledgeable portrait of the situation facing the fuel and power industries as a whole. He rightly pinpointed the tremendous difficulties involved when this question is being discussed. In spite of the statements of the hon. Member for Yeovil, I think that there is a need for a comprehensive fuel policy. The tenor of the debate is indicative of the essential part played by fuel in our economy, and we must, therefore, ensure that all forms of fuel are utilised in the best interests of the nation.
The gas industry can rightly claim that with the importation of oil, methane gas, and so on, from abroad it can play a large part in providing a cheaper fuel, but we must also think of our own natural resources, and not allow profitability, which is so dear to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to be the only factor in deciding which fuel to use. There are social factors to be taken into consideration in working out our fuel policy.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about profitability. That is one way of looking at it. Keeping down production costs to maintain full employment is another.

Mr. Popplewell: Both those points have been considered, but what I am saying is that social needs have to be assessed as a criterion in addition to mere profitability.
I was extremely intrigued to hear the protests which came from the other side of the House about this Order being considered at this late hour. It made me wonder how many times right hon. and hon. Members opposite used to ask us to debate these Orders at this time of night. During the comparatively brief spell when


the right hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field was at the Ministry of Power, did he not discuss this type of Order at a late hour or listen to discussions on other Orders from other Departments? Did this not happen under his own Administration?
I was amused by the hon. Member for Yeovil in his synthetic and histrionic protest which filled this side of the House with sympathy for his gestation—[Interruption.]—yes, I said gestation. We were further interested as the debate unfolded to discover that very little came from Members opposite which related to this Order. We did not see any real desire to talk about fuel, and I suggest that at the first opportunity the Opposition ask for a Supply Day to be used for discussion of this important topic. I assure right hon. and hon. Members opposite that we shall be most delighted to discuss the subject with them.
To return to this Order, I compliment my hon. Friend on the way in which he introduced it. He certainly dealt with its merits. I should like to ask, first, whether he would have another look at the gas industry as a whole. For example, he said that the industry had to supply half of its investments from current revenue—some £50 millions of investment. That amount has to be provided from a total of £100 millions a year. Is not this putting an undue proportion of expenditure on the undertaking? Is it not mortgaging too much of the future to expect so vast a sum to come from current revenue?
The hon. Member for Yeovil talked of the straitjacket in which the gas industry found itself. I agree, but I hope that this Government will take it off this industry and other publicly-owned undertakings, and give them full commercial freedom to compete on equal terms with private enterprise. The hard fact is that this straitjacket was put on the publicly-owned industries by hon. Members opposite.
Why not allow the gas undertaking to produce the component parts which it feels are essential for the sale of its wares? Hon. Members opposite had the opportunity to do that, but the opportunity was never taken because the straitjacket was imposed which prevented such freedom. We should give

the same commercial freedom to the publicly-owned industries as private enterprise enjoys. The success story which would then unveil itself, in spite of the shackles which have been placed by hon. Members opposite on the nationalised undertakings, would rocket upwards and astound the Minister. Even in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield one could trace a certain amount of pride in the achievements of the gas industry. He was one of the persons who was concerned with its administration when he was a Minister, and we have heard many former Tory Ministers defending publicly-owned undertakings, although politically and from a doctrinaire point of view they condemned them.
My right hon. Friend indicated that £650 million would not be sufficient. This is typically Tory administration. In the past a number of half-measures have been put forward by hon. Members opposite when they were in the Government. On many occasions we have been asked to subsidise an undertaking that, given commercial freedom, would not need a subsidy. We have heard many Tory Ministers say that these subsidies would be required only for a short period. This is the same thing all over again. I therefore suggest that before my right hon. Friend comes forward with a request for a further extension of this kind he should take the first step towards giving complete commercial freedom to all the undertakings for which he has responsibility.
If that happens we shall be able to go a long way not only towards providing a more efficient service but to reducing the price of gas and keeping prices at a much more stable level. This is very necessary. If we want to repair the damage done to our balance of payments by the Tory Administration the best way of doing so is by keeping prices stable, and by avoiding the vicious circle which has bedevilled us in the past.
I put these suggestions to my right hon. Friend for further consideration. I am sure that if he follows them even hon. Members opposite will not be able to cast stones at publicly-owned undertakings in the way they have done in the past. Instead, they and the nation will realise the wonderful success stories that can be told by these undertakings.

11.18 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) and with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) in expressing my congratulations to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his excellent maiden speech, which was so well-informed, modest, and to the point.
I also take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West on being appointed Chairman of the Select Committee dealing with nationalised industry matters. I am sorry, however, that in his new-found position he did not refer to the Select Committee, because four years ago it considered the gas industry in considerable detail.
I am not concerned with debating this matter at this late hour, but I am concerned with the cursory manner in which the Minister put forward his claim for £50 million, and the slight reference that he made to the developments in this immensely important industry. Of course the House would wish to give him the additional finance for which he is asking, but we are justified in saying that the gas industry has perhaps been more successful in selling gas than in forecasting its future financial requirements. It is only a short time ago that the House made provision for its financing at the rate of £600 million.
I, of course, cannot agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West when he says that this £50 million is a gross imposition on that industry and that it is too large a proportion of their net returns to have to put into their own capital requirements. Ever since the inception of the Select Committee inquiries into the various corporations, one of the things which has struck me most, particularly recently, is what pleasure the chairmen of these corporations express towards the White Paper which laid down the new system of financing and gave them a feeling that they were themselves contributing so substantially to their own requirements.
Hitherto they had to go cap in hand to the Treasury for any money they wanted. It is impossible for them to go to the public market which would be the

most ideal means, but they are, of course, given power to level their prices so that they can make very large reserves, and do make large reserves. I have noticed that they are glad to have the opportunity of contributing so materially from their own reserves in order to meet their own capital requirements. Undoubtedly this £50 million will not, I am sure, be the end of the story. The Minister will be coming back within a short time to ask for more. That in a sense is a measure of the success which is attending the efforts of this industry. It is remarkable and everyone who has spoken has paid tribute to that.
Since the Select Committee's inquiries into the gas industry, it has risen from approximately £2 million net profit to last year's considerable increase at round about £9 million. If the Minister's forecast of a 7 per cent. increase holds good, and I have no reason to suppose it will not, we can expect that £9 million to be improved upon considerably. One of the things that does give satisfaction is the fact that since we inquired into the industry it has made considerable provision for its own obsolescence, amounting to something like £19.5 million. That is one of the recommendations we made and it has carried it out faithfully.
As to the industry's developments, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, these are considerable. The cost of making gas in new oil reforming plants has been reduced in relation to electricity produced by conventional coal-or oil-fired methods by more than four times. That, as it progresses, will have a very real bearing on the importation of methane. As the Minister said, we have quite recently had the first ship bringing Sahara methane into this country and we are at present, I understand, in consultation with the Dutch about bringing in methane from Holland either by ship or possibly by some cross-Channel pipe.
Whether the whole of this development in regard to methane will not be submerged by the big development brought about by oil gasification by two very remarkable developments enabling us to get rich gas from naphtha, and whether we shall find methane even in these early days beginning to take a back seat as against developments on oil gasification, I think is open to question. In either case it is inevitable that the development


of this industry vis-á-vis the other energy producing industries is bound to be very great indeed.
In the United States 30 per cent. of the energy requirements in that great country today comes from gas. In this country at the present moment it is of the order of 6 per cent. That, I think, gives the House some idea of the immense developments which lie ahead of us. I join with my hon. Friends in saying that I hope that the greatest freedom will be given to this industry to develop, either through the use of methane or oil, and the like, so that it can play its part in bringing about a reduction in prices.
There is plenty of room for electricity. The requirements of industry for electricity are by no means satisfied. But equally there is a great field not only in regard to gas fires and space heating, and the like, but for the use of gas in a great variety of industries as well. Gas has a large part to play, and if greater freedom is given to the industry to compete with electricity and oil, the greater will be the advantage to the country itself.
I go further and say that I wish that the Minister had been able to hold out some greater hope that we should see a reduction in prices in the not too distant future. As I say, such advances have been made that it is now possible to produce gas at a price one-quarter of that produced under pure oil or electricity methods. This must give some indication of the fact that a considerable field of opportunity lies ahead of us in bringing about a reduction in the price of gas itself.
My right hon. Friend referred to the price of a therm of gas. I am not entirely with him. I thought that gas produced by the conventional method cost nearer 1s. 3d. than 1s.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I was giving the more conservative figure of 1s., having taken credit for coke and its by-products.

Colonel Lancaster: My own figure was something of the order of 1s. 3d. whereas a therm of gas produced by methane was of the order of 8¾d. and a therm produced under this new oil method was nearer 6d. This gives some indication of the very wide opportunity that exists for producing gas between, as I say, 1s. 3d. a therm or, as my right

hon. Friend says, 1s. a therm and 6d. It shows that there is every chance of a considerable reduction in the not too distant future.
Having dealt with that, I want to go back to two of the recommendations made by the Select Committee and which, of course, were not referred to in the Minister's speech tonight. The first was in regard to the structure of the industry itself. The Select Committee made a very definite recommendation that that should be looked into and that it should be improved.
We came to the conclusion that a council consisting of a chairman and vice-chairman and 12 area chairmen was not a sound method for controlling the industry. The 12 area chairmen were considered to be of a very high level of ability and men of considerable independence of thought. We considered that the job of attempting to be an area chairman and to sit on a central council and to speak with two voices was asking too much of these men, and that, indeed, they were not doing the job effectively. We noticed this particularly in their approach to the Lurgi process. They did not speak with one voice and it looked unlikely that they would on the developments that lay ahead. We strongly recommended—and the House will realise that it was an all-party Committee—that the council should be reformed. I hope that before long that matter will be looked into.
Another matter which received our attention and recommendation was the question of the underground storage of gas. This is a subject of immense importance and it has not been possible until recently to speak with any great experience about it. It is an involved geological problem. Mention was made from the benches opposite about the underground storage of gas at Winchester and that that scheme was dropped. I can assure the House that it was not dropped because of local objections but because the best advice both in this country and from the Continent was that the risks in storing gas under the strata underlying Winchester were too great to warrant such a development.
It has been shown that there are other, more suitable, strata, clay in particular and, in some cases, sand. Clay is the most suitable for underground storage.


But whether it is done in clay or otherwise, the necessity to push ahead now that a great body of experience has been gained is paramount, for whatever developments we have been discussing tonight, they will not be wholly satisfactory until we can get the full benefit of not only these new processes but of being able to store the gas.
Like all hon. Members, I agree with the necessity for this Order of £50 million. I wish that the Minister had elaborated his case rather more on some of the matters which are essential for the future progress of the gas industry. The opportunities for the industry are immense, possibly greater than any of the other industries concerned with power. We all wish the industry well.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: At this late hour, I do not wish to speak at great length. I felt that, since we are discussing something as great as the gas industry, not to have a voice from Scotland would be remiss, particularly since the history of the gas industry in Scotland has been even more remarkable than in other parts of the country.
Because of the geographical layout and historic nature of Scotland, we have entrusted a vast amount of work to the Scottish Gas Board. It is surprising to realise that that board has undertaken 200 work projects for a population of about 5 million people. Hon. Members representing East Midlands and North-East constituences speak about the gas industry's progress in vastly more heavily populated areas.
Because of the geographic layout of Scotland and the history of the gas industry there, the Scottish Gas Board has a particularly difficult task. It may surprise hon. Members who represent densely populated areas like the East Midlands and the North-East to realise that on vesting day the Scottish Gas Board was responsible for nearly 200 production works, and this for a population of about 5 million. Because of the Board's work the producing units have been cut by two-thirds, and this process is continuing.
There is not the slightest doubt that only a nationalised industry could have got such rationalisation, and pulled up

the industry in Scotland by its bootstraps. We had from the other side a curious blend of speeches—well-informed for the most part, but always one sensed that though hon. Members had to praise the industry they were somehow sorry that it had succeeded as a nationalised industry. It was rather difficult for them to admit that a nationalised industry had done so well.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that he wanted to encourage the nationalised industries, but nobody who listened to him for very long could feel that that was so. I see that in the debate on the nationalised industries on 18th June the hon. Gentleman voted against any expansion—which was really a vote of no confidence in them.
Criticisms of my right hon. Friend's brevity, and of the time at which this Order is being debated are also very largely a matter of "going through the motions." We all know that it is quite customary for such Orders to be discussed fairly late at night, while my right hon. Friend explained that he did not speak at length because the gas industry spoke for itself. He was speaking of a going concern and wanted additional authority to enable it to go ahead. From the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite it was evident that they, too, regarded gas as a going concern—so why should they criticise my right hon. Friend for his statement?
Of four main things that must be done fairly quickly, three relate to gas. First, the Gas Board must continue its search for a non-toxic gas. Some parts of the country have it, and it is high time that this work was speeded up. Particularly in some of the older areas where the underground pipes and the installations are ageing, we must have non-toxic gas as soon as possible. We have to accept the fact that removal of the toxic substances will probably mean a slight increase in cost, but I am sure that people would be quite willing to pay such a marginal increase if they could feel that the old hazard from gas had been completely removed.
Next, investigation of underground storage is quite vital. Here, one felt that hon. Members opposite were quite willing to let us have underground storage in return for giving up steel. They will give us almost anything if we


will give up steel, but as we feel that steel is just as important to the economy as the decision to nationalise the gas industry has proved to be, they are unlikely to be successful in their efforts in that direction.
In addition to the grid being extended, as was discussed by a previous Minister of Fuel and Power in a very well-informed speech, we must move to the supergrid very quickly. I hope the day is not too far ahead when, if Glasgow, Edinburgh or some other Scottish city is short of gas, we can push supplies to it from Birmingham or Manchester—although if the history of the last 13 years is anything to go by and were to continue, the gas would more likely be pushed the other way. In British terms the distances may be great, but in Continental or American terms they are as nothing. The supergrid must be started from some point fairly soon.
Most important of all—I am sure that I shall have little support from hon. Members opposite on this—if we are to have competition I am quite happy about it so long as it is in the production of fuel. We are fast reaching a stage where we must have a co-ordinated policy for selling fuel. This is particularly true of domestic sales. The average householder who wants to install central heating is bewildered, not by people genuinely telling him what is the best way to go about it, but in most cases by those suggesting the best way which will get a particular individual a bonus as against another individual interested in another fuel wanting a bonus.
I should like to see in the centre of big cities, instead of gas or electricity showrooms or a coal utilisation centre, a fuel and power centre where trained engineers and salesmen would be able to look at a particular problem and say that for an individual house or process the obvious answer is gas, electricity, oil, or some other type of fuel. The time is coming very quickly when we should end this wastage which as a nation we should not tolerate. In the next 10 years I hope gnat we shall see the day when instead of being badgered with brightly coloured brochures we shall have factual evidence given by people in the industries who are now engaged in cutting each other's throats. I commend this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I know

that many people in the fuel industry would like such a set-up.
My right hon. Friend made a perfect point when he said that he was putting forward a prospectus for a growing, expanding and healthy industry. I am happy to await the further Measure and the longer report he has promised to introduce.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: It may be somewhat impertinent of me as a new Member to compliment the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his maiden speech, but I should not like the occasion to go by without a word of compliment from this bench. On behalf of my party I add my congratulations to those which have been expressed by other hon. Members.
I have a sneaking suspicion that at this hour of the night hon. Members in all parts of the House would be far happier to be in their beds than listening to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I share their view entirely and I shall therefore address myself to the point with brevity. I do not feel that we can allow the debate to finish without a word of congraulation from the Liberal bench to this great industry. There is no doubt that there has been a wide measure of agreement on both sides of the House tonight in spite of appearances to the contrary. The gas industry has gone forward in a way which is deserving of great praise. I certainly shall not enter whether that is the result of its being under public ownership—although, for the record, the Liberal Party voted with the Labour Party on that during the 1945 Government—or whether it is the result of Conservative administration in the past 13 years. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the greatest possible praise is due to the industry and I am glad of the opportunity to say this tonight.
There has been a great rise in demand, which is satisfactory to the industry and to the nation as a whole. This is in part due to the fact that it is no longer regarded as sensible to get up in the morning to a cold bedroom and to take a cold bath. Although our Victorian ancestors thought this virtuous, it is much more practical to enjoy the modern amenities of heat and comfort. This is


also part of the general rise in national prosperity. We should not, however, overlook the fact that it is also due to the considerable technological advances in the gas industry. Great credit is due to the industry for the strides it has made, particularly in recent years, in domestic heaters as well as in the industrial field. It is necessary that this work should be encouraged, that there should be a continuation of the programmes of modernisation, that there should be a full examination of methods of underground storage and that every opportunity should be examined for research into new sources of gas.
Whilst giving that encouragement, we must pay tribute to the industry also for the fact it has produced so much of its capital requirement from its own income and resources. In this way, the industry sets a remarkably good example to other nationalised industry.
One aspect of the industry which is important concerns the extension of smokeless zones. Gas has a great part to play in this and from a health standpoint, apart from all other considerations, this great industry should receive encouragement. In future, too, we in this House should look carefully at proposals for the further advancement of this great industry. I conclude by saying that we on this bench give support to the purpose behind tonight's Measure and that we welcome it.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: As, perhaps, one of the last speakers in this debate, I will endeavour to be brief. My position is rather difficult, however, as I have not attended or taken part in the proceedings of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries; and I cannot claim to be an expert on the industry, although I made my maiden speech on the gas industry. Firstly, I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his maiden speech tonight.
There is a difficulty. As Members of Parliament, we are trustees for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's money. We are also trying at this late hour to make a wider appreciation of the possibilities of gas and of the gas industry. Our debate tonight has, perhaps, been a compromise

between the two. We have before us an Order which, in two main sentences, decides that the gas industry should be allocated more money.
One of my difficulties as a trustee is in trying to underwrite the activities of the Select Committee. It might have been better if the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries had looked at the Order and given us the benefit of its advice before we had to debate it in the House of Commons.
We learn from the Minister's statement that the increase in gas sales is likely to be about 7 or 8 per cent. as against the estimate published six months ago of 5 per cent. in the current year and a figure of 3 per cent. in the previous year. We have thus had confirmation of the increase in demand for gas.
We have also the annual White Paper. The latest one, Government Expenditure Below The Line 1964–65, was published in April. On page 17, it contains an appreciation of the "Estimated Issues out of and Receipts into the Consolidated Fund Below the Line". This gives a figure of roughly £20·8 as against £68·8 million quoted by the Gas Council the year before. That would indicate a slightly reduced requirement. Does this match up to the proposals which have been put forward by the Minister this evening?
As the taxpayer's trustee, I find my position similar to that of a trustee looking at a private company which wishes to expand. The problem of managing a nationalised industry is similar to the problem of managing a large industrial concern. The company goes to its merchant bankers or its stockbrokers and asks for more money. It might be a private loan from the bank or a public issue of debenture stock or preference stock. There would have to be a prospectus. Therefore, if private industry wanted this extra money, we would demand much more information than the Minister has given us or than has been published in the various reports.
We want to know how much capital has already been invested in the industry, what the increase is going to be in each particular endeavour of the industry, and we want to know more about the current return on capital. One figure bandied about is 10·1 per cent. If therefore all this money is wasted, it is the taxpayer


who pays. This is going to be the increasing problem of running our nationalised industries.
I see the hon. Member who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which dealt with the gas industry. This could well be his problem as the years go by.

Mr. Popplewell: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Select Committee's Report on the gas industry, he will find that this Order is more in accord with the recommendations that the Committee made at the time.

Mr. Osborn: That is exactly what I have been doing, as I knew that this subject would be debated, and I shall pursue my point. We come back to the information which is before us, namely, that we are asked to raise the borrowing powers by £50 million. What could I find from the Select Committee's Reports? There are two Reports that we have a chance of studying. The first was printed on 5th June, 1962. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 38, in Part II of the Report, on page 10:
The Committee … believes that a minimum standard rate of return should be laid down for the Boards by the Minister in respect of large investment projects, and that this should introduce a greater sense of realism into the plans which are to be made.
I gather that is what the hon. Member was referring to. This is excellent. But do we know that this now applies? This is the recommendation of the Committee, but has it been implemented?
Let us look at the Second Special Report which was published in March, 1964. The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has referred to paragraphs 43 and 44. Reference is made to the two alternative ways of reorganising the gas industry. To what extent has that been carried out? To what extent is that necessary in connection with the increase in these borrowing powers?
There is also mention of the increase in the number of Council members. Paragraph 49 refers to legislation to provide for the development of underground storage of gas, the advantages of which have been referred to in the Committee's Report. There comes a stage when, if we are asked to vote more money, as representatives of the tax-

payers, we surely ought to know what progress has been made towards implementing these recommendations.
I apologise for raising at this hour technical questions which, admittedly, are Select Committee questions, but this is part of the routine of politics and part of the work which we must do as Members of Parliament if we are to look after the taxpayer's money which, in this case, is to be spent by the gas industry.
There have been other documents and reports. The excellent summary in "Gas Goes Ahead", a development plan to 1970, gives some idea of the industry's proposals, which we welcome, but there seems to have been a remarkable increase in its borrowing powers lately, and this calls for redoubled energy in scrutinising how the money is being spent. It would have been more satisfactory if an equivalent kind of document, perhaps in the form of a statement, had been presented with this Order so that we could assess for ourselves what progress had been made along the lines of the plan rather than take the Minister's word for it.
I made my maiden speech four years ago on the gas industry, and I referred then to the importation of methane from the Sahara and to the creation of the gas grid. In the past four years, the first section of the grid has been established. I welcome the Minister's announcement of the level of gas imports, 350 million therms a year, and his reference to a price of 6¼d. per therm, which is remarkably cheap.
In my maiden speech I spoke also about the economics of the household use of gas, a matter which was dealt with this evening by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), and I discussed the merits and demerits of various forms of fuel for heating a house. Much has changed in four years. There has been a dynamic change in the gas industry itself.
But the industry has had its successes and its disappointments. I have had the privilege, as many hon. Members have, of going to Birmingham and West Fife where the Lurgi process has been put into operation. These projects may in due course be worth while, and continued expenditure on them will be justified, if in the end we find a process which will enable us to use low grade solid fuel.
One can praise the industry sometimes, and other times not. What is most interesting now is that various customers and would-be customers are surveying their own requirements in the light of a possible price of 6d., 8d. or 10d. a therm. This contrasts with the average present price of gas of 22·77d. per therm to the consumer. Such a reduction would be remarkable and much to be welcomed if it could be implemented and if the industry could still earn a return on capital invested.
It would be with reluctance, therefore, that one would object to the giving of this increased borrowing power if the consumer can look for reductions in price of that kind at the end of the day. So far, we have only the Minister's word for it. It is a far cry from 22·77d. per therm to the promise before us, but, if the promise can be fulfilled, there will be vast changes.
The hon. Member for Woodside spoke of the toxicity of gas. In the last four or five years, the carbon monoxide content has come down as a result of the introduction of new processes. Whereas 10 per cent. would have been regarded as normal, it is now 3 per cent., and this factor makes the use of gas more safe. I am referring not to the risk of explosion after leakage from pipes but to the other hazard which sometimes discourages its use.
I could in conclusion raise many other points but it is not my wish to do so now. We in this House should know how this money is to be spent and be sure that it is spent in those areas where it should be spent and not outside them. For instance, to what extent should we encourage the Gas Council in North Sea activities? Would it not be better—and this was indicated in the Select Committee's Report—for that type of exploitation and development to be carried out by outsiders, with the encouragement of the Gas Council, which would do more purchasing from outside? There will have to be agreements with the Dutch. Would it not be better for the Gas Council to concentrate more on that kind of thing than on North Sea developments itself?
These questions are nebulous but in the Yorkshire area where I come from we hear of extensive developments in the Humber and Hull. Would this not be in-

evitable if adequate resources of natural gas were found in the North Sea?
It is difficult at this late hour to judge correctly whether or not this money is being spent wisely by the Gas Council, because we do not know. The gas industry has had a very fine record in the last four or five years and therefore my inclination is to support this Order. But on future occasions we shall want much more information before we can judge whether or not the money is being well spent.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Even in the West Country there is considerable interest in the gas industry and, indeed, in Bristol we have a gas works of some considerable quality. It was only in the village of Chew Magna that the industry originally escaped nationalisation and this was because no one knew about the works there until a new main was dug, when it became part of the nationalised undertaking.
I do not wish to detain the House too long so I will try to compress my remarks on the more important aspects. Gas is a most significant form of power and has enormous social advantages, some of which have been mentioned tonight. As one who is keen on the preservation of our countryside, I might emphasise the complete absence of pylons and wires and other excrescences on the surface of the ground.

Mr. Cyril Bence: What about gasometers?

Mr. Cooke: I am coming to them. I dearly love the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), although I cannot call him my hon. Friend, but I shall not follow him now in his sedentary interruptions.
This is a vitally important industry and that is emphasised by the fact that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) chose to make his maiden speech on the Order at this late hour. That is indication enough of the importance of the subject. He said that he would not be controversial but did enter into controversy in his remarks about a complete rethinking of national fuel policy.
I could not help thinking that underlying that was the fear that perhaps the


nationalised coal industry might find itself contracted still further because the gas industry was coming to rely less and less on coal. Certainly the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) had very stern words to say about it. He suggested that the coal industry must not be sacrificed in the name of profitability.
What on earth does that mean? Surely we are not to be asked to run any industry as a social service for those employed in it. Before that statement evokes a roar of disapproval from hon. Members opposite, may I say that I realise that, in the great changes that are taking place in our great industries, of course the welfare of those employed in them and who will have to change their jobs is of great importance to this Government, as it was to the last.
That must be a paramount charge on any changes that take place. The idea that he had in mind was that an industry should be kept going in an unproductive way purely as a social service to provide employment for those in it. The gas industry, to which we are being asked to vote considerably increased funds, must exist on its own and must make use of every modern invention which comes to hand.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing their best to prolong this short speech of mine. I have no intention of inflicting myself on the House for longer than is necessary—[HON. EMBERS: "Hear, hear:]—but I must warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is a limit to the patience of even the most saintly hon. Member, and it may be necessary to take up some of the interventions, mostly made from a seated position.
The Minister was rather coy in his forecasts of future policy and future trends, and even this glossy booklet, one of a fistful which I was handed from the Vote Office when I asked for the papers on this debate, does not go very far. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take a leaf out of the book of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General who, the other day, on purely hypothetical figures, forecast losses in the postal services for five years ahead. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could use that type of crystal ball in getting a much

more satisfactory view of the future of the gas industry.
Much more could be said about this subject, and especially about the future methods of producing gas, but one would not wish to go into those technicalities at this stage, because no doubt there will be other opportunities for doing so. The House will recall that a day or two ago the Government, somewhat reluctantly, confirmed the licences for activities in the North Sea, which have a considerable bearing on this subject. If that is any indication of the sort of attitude which the Government are going to adopt to this vitally important industry, and indeed to others, on which the whole future of the economy depends, there is not much hope for this country. The future of the economy cannot be settled by borrowing money from abroad at exhorbitant rates. It can be settled only by working for it.

Mr. Bence: Not at ten past twelve.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman says not at ten past twelve. Surely that is typical of the attitude of the Government. They want to work for only eight hours a day. I do not know whether it will be a five-day week. I doubt whether it will be; it is more likely to be four. That is the sort of attitude which the Government adopt. We are discussing a vitally important matter at this late hour, and all that we can get from hon. Gentlemen opposite is ribald laughter. I have not even attempted to make a speech which was remotely amusing. I could do better than this if I were trying to put on a comic turn. But the House of Commons is not the place for that.
There are a few final thoughts which I should like to give the House. One of these is on the question whether the gas industry should have some permanently fixed share in our fuel policy. We have heard that sentiment expressed. Surely that would be a most dangerous attitude to adopt. One must be flexible in this. One must be able to adapt oneself to future needs. Are we going to have a Ministerial reply which will give us a little more indication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not tonight."]—That is all that we hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Before we vote this money, we ought to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are prepared to


grasp all the new opportunities of the technological age. What is the new Minister of Technology doing about the future of the gas industry? We are being asked to approve this expenditure. The House has a right to know what is going to be done with it.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I should like to join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on a most admirable maiden speech. It was most knowledgeable and full of interest for the whole House. I heartily congratulate him upon it and assure him that we shall look forward to hearing future contributions from him on this subject.
I began to get a little alarmed when the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) leaned so far across the Dispatch Box as almost to do himself a mischief in his great anxiety to criticise me for having dared to bring on this Order for discussion at so late an hour, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to HANSARD for 29th July, 1963. There, at column 171, we read,
GAS (BORROWING POWERS) ORDER.

10.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move,
That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th July, 1963, Vol. 682, c. 171.]
That was at 10.29 p.m., and the hon. Gentleman got through his explanation in three minutes flat and sat down at 10.32.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also be good enough to inform the House for how long the debate continued and, secondly, whether I spoke again.

Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to have a reply to this debate, then that is splendid. We can then all go home, but at least I should like to mention this ersatz approach to the debate, about starting at a late hour, and at the same time complaining that I confined myself only to what is in the Order. This comes ill from one who did exactly the same thing in 1963, but managed it in only three minutes.
Tonight we have heard of ventures in the North Sea, and possibilities of an agreement so far as Dutch natural gas is concerned, but, at this stage, these things, important though they are, have nothing whatever to do with whether or not we agree to an increase of £50 millions for the Gas Council. Those other matters are vitally important issues and I venture to think that we shall discuss them, but for hon. Members opposite to criticise me for the alleged narrowness of my speech because I confined myself to the increased borrowing and did not talk about Holland or the North Sea, is not the best of criticism.
It seems tonight that my hon. Friends have been badly out-done in the pæans of praise and the superlative approval for the benefits of nationalisation. "The junkyard of nationalisation". Where have we heard that expression? The right hon. Gentleman who once held the position I now have showered congratulations on this nationalised industry for the remarkable speed with which it had gone ahead, and the way in which every opportunity had been grasped in order to eliminate the fears which faced the industry only four or five years ago.
To say that it is a very fine compliment for all the things which we have advocated over the years is one thing; to think of all the denigration of the nationalised industries, which has been a constant theme of the Tory Party and which has cost the party millions of pounds in propaganda, is another. These things can be brought up against hon. Members opposite when the occasion arises.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Col. Lancaster) and the hon. Member for Yeovil raised the question of storage, and the need for the reconstruction of the industry itself. These are not issues which come within the general discussion of this £50 million, although I agree that they are vital ones. The Select Committee reported four years ago. There is no question of the Gas Council being in any way held up for lack of those powers. Nevertheless, I recognise that if we are to have success in the North Sea venture—if, indeed, at some stage there is agreement between the Gas Council and the Dutch authorities—such storage would become utterly inevitable.
But when we receive criticisms from the hon. and gallant Member we remember that it was four years ago that the Select Committee reported, and also that when a Bill came to the House it was not sponsored by the Tory Government but by the Gas Council as a private Bill. The criticism that was made in that debate was centred on the fact that it was a Private Bill. Why is it that that which was not deemed necessary prior to 15th October, namely, for the Government to introduce a Bill, has suddenly become imperative within a few days of 15th October? We reject the rather cynical approach of hon. Members opposite, who had years in which to introduce such a Measure and did not believe that it was imperative, but have now suddenly found—they being out of office—how important and vital it is that this Measure should be on the Statute Book.
I, too, want legislation as soon as possible. I agree that there is a need for giving more power to the Council as distinct from area boards. National ventures such as we have been discussing, whether for importing methane or searching, for gas beneath the North Sea, require more power at the centre. I repeat, however, that at the moment we are not holding up any progress in the industry. We hope to get the necessary legislation, and the Bill is practically ready, but there is the question of priorities in the Parliamentary timetable, and I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce the Measure. It will certainly he introduced long before the industry could be held up for lack of the necessary power, but I cannot say that it will be introduced this Session.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I appreciate that the question of the powers of the Gas Council would not hold up anything, but surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is urgent that the industry should have this Bill to give it power to get on with underground storage.

Mr. Lee: I do not dissent from that. I repeat that it is not holding up the development of the industry at the moment, nor can it for some time. Secondly, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says; I, too, would like to get this legislation as soon as possible.
The reasons why the Gas Council requires increased borrowing powers I gave

in the course of my opening speech, and at this time of the day I am pretty sure that a repetition of what I said would hardly be appreciated in any part of the House.
During the debate there has been no dissenting voice from the basic argument that this is a highly successful industry, and because of its success it now requires an increase in its borrowing powers. Much of the investment already undertaken cannot possibly yield results in the meantime, and therefore this £50 million is necessary. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) had any doubts whether this is a good investment I would say that many people would love to put the £50 million up as private people, if they had the chance. I may be exciting ideas among hon. Members opposite when I say that, since past history has shown that whenever nationalised industries are guilty of making profits they immediately become candidates for denationalisation in the eyes of the party opposite.
I was asked whether we would further competition in the nationalised industries. It is a fantastic situation that apparently these days the Tories are advocates of more cut-throat competition in the nationalised industries and the elimination of any competition for the private ones. This is a fantastic situation. I hope that the House will now be prepared to agree that we have made the case for the increase of £50 million. I commend the Order to the House.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Minister was remarkably quick to rise to his feet, and I might have let him to bed before I had opportunity to wind up the debate from this side of the House had he not made such an unsatisfactory speech at his second attempt as well as at his first. It is not our fault that the House is troubled at this late hour with discussing this important matter. We did not put down the Order for tonight. If the Government had not troubled themselves with a lot of contentious legislation and asked us to take this Order late at night on top of it, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would not have been sitting on the benches opposite longing for their rest in the way they now do.
I hope that the Government, when they come back to the House for more borrowing powers for the Gas Council, will make certain that they give us a full day's debate. When the present Act was debated it was done at a more suitable time than ten o'clock at night—the time when the debate on this Order started. In spite of the late hour we have had a good debate and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends upon the assiduity and attention with which they attend the affairs of the Gas Council. The way in which my hon. Friends have taken part in this debate goes a long way to disprove the allegations that the Tories do not care for the nationalised industries, which have been made so freely from the other side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this Order had nothing to do with the various projects we have been talking about. This Order is for £50 million new investment by the Gas Council. It is right that we should discuss the form of that new investment before we agree to the Order going through the House tonight. There is every need and right for the House to discuss future developments and processes which are coming into the manufacture of gas and which are revolutionising that industry so that it can break away from its past.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) went a bit far. He talked about gross neglect and ineptitude on the part of the Tory Government with regard to the gas industry. Can he really substantiate that? I hope that he will have the grace to withdraw those words. This industry has prospered and gone ahead on the evidence and testimony of all those who have spoken in this debate, yet this was how the hon. Member described the contribution of the last Government to what has been done. Those words were not worthy of the hon. Member.

Mr. Popplewell: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I hope that the hon. Member is asking me to give way so that he can withdraw.

Mr. Popplewell: I referred to the ineptitude and gross mismanagement of the Government of past years by saying that

it was taking us so long to clear up the mess before we could get on with all these things. What I referred to was the Tory Government putting the publicly-owned industries into a straitjacket and not allowing them full commercial freedom. That is correct, as everyone knows. If that freedom is given, as I hope and trust it will be given by my right hon. Friend, these publicly-owned undertakings will be even more successful than they have been previously.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has already made one speech and in his second speech, just like the Minister, he seemed to me to add nothing to his first.
The point is that under the Conservative Government this industry prospered. There were all the new projects which we have been discussing tonight. Sahara methane was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd). He was the originator of this scheme. It is one of the new schemes which has allowed the Gas Council to break away from the past which it inherited from the Government of the right hon. Gentleman's party in 45–51.
I hope that the Government have no prejudices against the import of methane. Reading through past debates on Orders for borrowing powers for the gas industry, we see that time and time again on the then Opposition Front Bench there has been this prejudice against any increase in the Gas Council's sources of fuel or its power to get fuel from elsewhere. I was very pleased—and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for this—that the Minister did not tonight repeat what was said when his party was in Opposition. I am also pleased to read that the Gas Council has opened negotiations with the Dutch to explore the possibility of laying a pipeline across the channel in order to import Dutch natural gas.
These are most important negotiations. If they succeed in bringing them off it will mean cheaper methane coming to us under the English Channel rather than having to import it from the Sahara. I hope that in due course we shall hear something about the scheme from the right hon. Gentleman. There is also the question of the possible supply of natural gas from the Continental Shelf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) mentioned the


fact that the Government have decided not to revoke the licences. I hope that this is a genuine conversion and not merely because it was too late to change the decision of the last Government—a genuine conversion that will allow the gas industry to take what sources of fuel are most economical for it and not be tied to trying to boost the sales of coal, and will allow it to roam free and make its own fortune where it may.
All these sources are going to increase the consumption of natural gas by some 320 million therms by 1965–66. This underlines again the importance of the points which my right hon. Friends have made concerning underground storage. I really do not think that we were very impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's answer as to when he was going to bring in this legislation. The point is that despite many technical and other difficulties the legislation was, more or less, ready to be introduced into the House. Had my right hon. Friends won the election it would probably have been going through the House at the present time. Just because the party opposite won the election the Bill has been put back.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thinks it is unlikely that the Bill will be brought in this Session. This is a very serious matter. It means that the Government are putting their other Measures—we dread to think what they will be—contentious Measures and quite unnecessary Measures, in front of the future development of the gas industry.
The Lurgi process has not yet been proved to be economic and there is not yet any known means of making gas from coal which will be as cheap as the means by which the industry has been doing it lately. I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept the fact that wishful thinking will not change it.
We have been told throughout the debate by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) and other hon. Members opposite that in some ways we have been beastly to nationalised industries. I should like to quote from the speech of a very well loved Member of the House, now recently ennobled, Mr. Blyton. Speaking in the last gas debate he said:
After facing this with patience and tolerance, we now receive another blow from the

nationalised gas industry, which is importing liquid methane and using oil, with the backing of foreign capital."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th November, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 723.]
If that is not attacking the nationalised industries I do not know what it is. Here is a clear attack from the then Opposition Front Bench on a nationalised industry, the Gas Council, which was trying to improve its competitative ability and make itself pay. Who were allowing it to go ahead? The Tories. Who were distracting it? Hon. Members opposite. So please may we have less of this argument?
Do the Government see what modernisation means today? Do they understand the full implications of the technological age? Or are they going to stick to their reactionary and protectionist outlook and stick to the theory of a co-ordinated fuel policy, with each fuel industry having a separate, alloted share of the market? The only hope is for all the fuel industries to compete. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside who said, in effect, "Let them compete in price but not in sales", seemed to be begging the question. How can one compete in price if one does not try to sell against another, describing the relative attractions as well as the relative prices of the products?
Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, I hope that we are not going to have an attempt to straighten out the future of these different industries by placing them in pre-ordained channels, because as the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) said in his admirable maiden speech, forecasting is a very difficult and dangerous business. Forecasts have often failed in the past. Have the Government accepted that this is so?
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West claimed that we should on all possible occasions use indigenous fuel. This has been a constant cry from hon. Members opposite; that for the sake of our balance of payments we should use indigenous fuel. What is the point of this year lending about £300 million abroad or giving aid in the form of grants? We have given long-term credit guarantees to the tune of £1,350 million. All our efforts are strained to increasing the amount we can lend abroad.
Should we lend less abroad and import more from the underdeveloped countries, such as the Sahara, from which we are importing methane? Or should we achieve more in the underdeveloped countries by lending more money which we have saved on our balance of payments? We cannot do it both ways and I hope that in this endless argument about the balance of payments we will bear in mind that trade is often much better than aid.
The Government are tonight asking the House to grant £50 million. The Minister said that the new Bill to increase the borrowing powers of the gas industry would be required fairly soon. We should still like to know when that will be. When the last Measure was introduced, in 1963, the then Minister of Power said that it would last until the seventies. With the accelerated rate of capital investment, the Minister is already forecasting a new Bill, which means that he has used up the £125 million. I hope, therefore, that he will inform the House as soon as possible when the new Bill will be brought forward.
I remind him that he has left many questions unanswered. A large number of points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and, although many of us are waiting to go home, that is no excuse for leaving some of these vital questions unanswered. I hope that, perhaps before Christmas, perhaps very shortly afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman will allot us another day to debate these great industries, which we on this side take with great seriousness and concern.
I echo the words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) who ended his speech by congratulating the Gas Council on making a profit of £9 million this year. We should like all the nationalised industries to do this, and we therefore have great pleasure in allowing this Order to go through, but we again appeal to the Government not to treat the whole matter quite so cavalierly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

12.36 a.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Almost from the first day on which this Government took office we have had Ministers giving speedy but, I am afraid, hazy statements of what future legislation is likely to be. I suppose that their reason for doing so is to give an impression of alertness and dynamism in anticipation of a General Election which cannot be all that far away, in view of the general situation.
I agree that useful and properly thought out legislation cannot make the some immediate impact as do these breezy but ambiguous interim statements, but I believe that, at the end of the day, the proper course is still the best course, and that the proper course is that it is a less dangerous way of governing if a statement is followed up immediately by a Bill or at least a White Paper. One of the best examples of the present method was provided by the Chancellor, when he gave his disastrous, provoking anticipation of his next Budget, and we saw part of that from the paper that had to be put in the Vote Office today.
The other example is provided by the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 12th November, and it is this that I wish to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman said:
… I told the regional controllers of the Board of Trade yesterday, after a full discussion, that I wished to see a tougher application of the I.D.C.s on factories being built in the really congested areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 1226.]
A tougher application in regard to the industrial development certificate policy. I should like to know exactly what that means. It is right that we should know, because from my knowledge of the policy of the last four years as practised by the previous Government, anything much tougher could not be put into operation without direction of industry, and the corollary of the direction of labour if the thing was to work at all. With this possible interpretation of the words of the President of the Board of Trade, we


should have more clarification as soon as possible.
The previous policy on industrial development certificates was made quite clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) when, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade he spoke in this House on 4th May, 1964. My hon. Friend said:
As the Study makes clear, the South-East makes a vast contribution towards the prosperity of Britain. In our desire to deal with the problems of the South-East we should be wary of pursuing economically masochistic policies towards the South-East such as a blanket refusal to grant any more I.D.C.s in the South-East irrespective of the merits of the individual application.
Does a tougher application go back on that statement? My hon. Friend went on to say:
Just as it is true that we cannot have proper regional development without national economic growth, so it is equally true that we cannot hope to optimise our national rate of growth its unless every region is itself optimising Its economic potential."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 1039–40.]
Will that piece of good sense still stand when the tougher application is brought into being?
My hon. Friend a little later said:
As I made quite clear, development districts have priority when I.D.C. applications are considered. Few certificates are granted in the industrially overcrowded part of the country for new ventures or for major expansion of existing factories.
On the other hand, it is quite unrealistic to suppose that all industrial development can be prevented in the South-East, or that areas of high unemployment would benefit if it were. There are, for example, efficiency schemes which can reduce employment; local service industries which cannot be separated from existing factories, and others which, although not requiring adjacent premises, need to be within a relatively short distance of the parent plant or parent suppliers. It would be unrealistic and unsound to try to prevent such industrial development…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1964: Vol. 694, c. 1046-7.]
Is that practical and sensible approach to be replaced by something more rigid? If the hon. Gentleman in replying can say that it is not intended radically to alter the basic approach to this question, the optimum of productivity which is the nation's need will be more likely to be achieved.
If the new toughness means forcing industry to development districts without regard for individual factory needs, I

tremble for our 4 per cent. national growth need and our balance of payments problem. If anything like that had been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he made the speech on 12th November, the interim statement may have done some good in the sense that it might have given us a chance to try to deter him in time.
Everyone accepts the need and the good sense in making it difficult for any more factory building in the busy areas of full employment. To build there they should have to pass strict and rigid tests, but I claim that the door ought not to be bolted and barred irrespective of merit. Everyone accepts the need and the good sense of inducing firms to prefer the development districts. That is right and my right hon. Friends in the previous Administration had notable success with a policy which brought that about without being as rigid as the words used by the President of the Board of Trade indicated he might intend to be.
I ask the Government to examine without prejudice the success of the previous Administration, who were firm without being rigid to the point of not taking merit into account. The figures I have for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964 give this message of success by the previous Administration. In the year ending 31st March, 1962, 41,155,000 square feet of extra development took place. Of that, 5,500,000 took place in a development district. In 1963 the total was 30,537,000 square feet, of which 5,116,000 was in a development district. In the year ended 31st March, 1964 the total development was 42,470,000 square feet, of which 12,747,000 was in a development district.
I suggest that 23,370,000 square feet in needy areas in three years is a good record. It was achieved without losing the good will of all the industries involved. This is very important. It would be a bad thing if the Government allowed a fleeting satisfaction of applying what they call toughness to interfere with this very satisfactory trend. It is agreed that Government measures are required to encourage economic growth in areas of unemployment and underemployment, but the most effective way of doing that is to improve the facilities and services in the areas to which we want to attract industry. Better roads, improvement in port facilities, airports,


hotels, power services and water supplies, houses, schools and hospitals are the sort of improvements that will attract industry naturally to the areas where we want it to go.
It should not be attempted by extreme I.D.C. toughness. The refusal of an I.D.C. for location A does not necessarily mean that the applicant will obediently go to location B. Often he goes nowhere, because expansion in the existing location is the only practical course as he as a business man sees it. If that happens, the nation is the loser; we do not have the improvement that we want for our general improvement in productivity.
Indeed, reports from the Central Midlands indicate that many small and medium-size firms have expansion potential which is not being realised. Both in Birmingham and in Manchester, industry has emphasised the need for attention to be given to management problems and the shortage of management staff. Before an I.D.C. is refused, it should be remembered that the scale of business of many firms is such that if they have to open a branch too far away from their parent plant, they do not have the management staff capable of working it. If the distance is too far for the managers of the original firm to travel with success, the result is that the potential from the new factory will not be achieved, and for that reason it is not even started. If a Midland firm is compelled to go to a distant location, this necessitates a new organisation, which often is not available. This is sufficient to deter companies from making the move which would be in the best interests of the nation.
My hope in bringing this matter to the attention of the Department is that we shall be able to get from the Government tonight clarification of the statement by the President of the Trade and a statement that they are prepared to copy their predecessors in at least one respect: that is, in trying to achieve the same success in applying industrial development certificates. It is right that the Government should urge everyone who wants extension to go to development districts, but in the absence of agreement every application should be judged on its merits. It is surely good sense to give permission even in areas of full employment rather than not have the development.
I suggest to the Government that the success of our policy so far has justified its continuation. I hope that the interpretation of the Government's new policy will not injure the good will and success which has been achieved.

12.48 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I assure the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) that we will not endanger the success—I admit, the success over the past years—of the industrial development certificate policy. The hon. Member asked me to explain what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade meant by a "tougher application" of I.D.C. policy. What it means is that applications from the heavily congested areas will be examined a little more critically than in the past.
Those words have been used before. The hon. Member was rather selective in his quotations from Board of Trade Ministers of the previous Administration, and I should like to quote a statement that was made by the then President of the Board of Trade, Sir David Eccles, in July, 1958. He said:
As the House is aware, it is not the practice of my Department to issue industrial development certificates—save in the most exceptional circumstances—for firms wishing to set up new factories in the more congested parts of the country. The certificates issued in those places are almost entirely for extensions or efficiency projects"—
that is the point which the hon. Member has made—
which it would be uneconomic to separate from the existing buildings.
I propose in future to examine all such applications, both for new buildings and for extensions, even more critically than in the past and to extend the practice at present applied in the Greater London and Greater Birmingham areas to other parts of the country where unemplopment is low."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1958; Vol. 592, c. 156–7.]
Those are practically the same words that my right hon. Friend used a day or two ago. The same thing happened in 1962 when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in the debate on the Address, said:
We shall continue the very tough policy of I.D.C.s that we have pursued for some years. It is nonsense to suggest that our policy has been other than tough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 663.]


Later on. in July of this year, the then Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), said:
There is no intention of relaxing the industrial development certificate policy. As far as the Midlands and the South-East are concerned, it will remain as tough as ever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1964; Vol. 698,c. 1517.]
This emphasis upon toughness in carrying out the I.D.C. policy has gone right through the previous Administration and it has again been expressed today, for obvious reasons. This country has got resources of manpower that are not being fully used because the industries are not in the places where the spare manpower happens to be. Somehow or other we have got to ease the load, which is now very oppressive indeed in some of the congested districts.
In fact, I think it is generally agreed now that one of the reasons for what is called the "overheating" of the economy is that in certain parts of the country the industrial firms are fully stretched. They have no new skilled labour which they can take in when expansion of their production is called for. In many cases, because of the congested area in which they are working, they are in difficulties in getting arty factory expansion at all, even if I.D.C.s were given to them. This has meant that there is a backlog of orders which cannot be fulfilled, and it goes all the way down the line. Somehow we have got to do all we possibly can as quickly as we can to break this situation, and the I.D.C. policy is the best way of doing it.
Therefore, when my right hon. Friend says that we are going to be tougher than in the past, we are saying precisely the same thing that Ministers in the previous Administration had said, that we have got to be tough and examine very critically indeed, and, in our present circumstances, be even more critical than before.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that what the President of the Board of Trade said was that he was going to be as tough as he had been before? We interpreted his statement to mean that he was going to superimpose extra toughness on the toughness that existed before.

Mr. Darling: No, we are going to examine even more critically than before all the applications which come in. This is extra toughness. In those circumstances, for the reasons which the hon. Member gave, and with which I agree, if an application comes along where if one does not allow the extension to go ahead one will interfere with the efficiency of the set-up, the question has got to be examined from that point of view. But where industries or extensions to industries can go to development districts where there are spare labour and resources without hardship to the existing firm, whatever the circumstances may be, they should go. That is what the industrial development certificate system is for.
It is very difficult indeed to pinpoint how extra toughness will operate except by taking examples, which—and I do not mean this in any unduly critical way—the hon. Gentleman did not produce. He knows very well that the applications as they come into the Board of Trade are thoroughly examined. If a firm, perhaps in a congested area in the Midlands, is dissatisfied with the attitude of the officials of the Board of Trade, senior officials can look at the matter again. It can be looked at by Ministers, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, issues are raised in the House, deputations are received, and so on. I am confident that, if we carry out my right hon. Friend's words and make the examination of all applications for I.D.C.s in the congested districts more critical, all the factors will be taken into account and will be properly examined. But I repeat that, in the present circumstances of overheating of the economy, something must be done.
Over the past 12 months, to the surprise of almost everyone I think, industrialised production in this country has not gone up. This is a surprising fact because all the forecasts made earlier in the year suggested that there would be a continuous rise. Somewhere in this country, with our economic system, there must be spare manpower. Otherwise, these production figures do not make sense. We know that there is spare manpower in the sense of under-employment in some of the development districts, and there are great numbers of unemployed. I cannot make the calculations, and I do not know what would happen to our production figures if all the people who


could be fully employed were, in fact, fully employed today.
But there must be other factors in the levelling off of production over practically the whole of this year. It may be, as the hon. Gentleman said, that in certain parts there is transport congestion. There are resources and public services not properly planned. In many areas where the overheating occurs, because of lack of supplies of components further down the line or lack of semi-finished materials coming at the right time, many firms may well be holding on to skilled workers and not working full time in the sense of giving full production.
If one of the factors in this situation is that loss of production is being caused by congestion of one kind or another while in the development districts and elsewhere there is labour underemployed, we must somehow spread our production activities over the country and take a lot more to the places where there is spare labour. In this situation we must look more critically at applications for factory extensions in the congested districts. If we do not look at them very critically indeed, we may be making the situation worse.
I am not sure—I am thinking aloud—whether it may be necessary to look at the application of industrial development certificate policy afresh, if we have time, so that we may be able to offer inducements to firms to move out of the districts where they are now even though, at present, they are not thinking of applying for any additions or extensions. We certainly do not want to put any firm in the situation where, by refusing an extension to its factory, we reduce the opportunities for it properly and efficiently to expand and, perhaps, do what we want many more firms to do, that is, move strongly into the export trade. We have to look at the matter as a whole, from all these points of view.
There is another important factor to be taken into consideration. It may be that, in certain cases of application for extensions which come before the Board of Trade for examination, the labour force would actually be reduced if that extension were to be for automatic machinery, because such machinery occupies more space with fewer workers than previously.
We must look at extensions in relation to the number of workpeople to be employed. In the Midlands area, with which the hon. Member for Peterborough is very much concerned, we have also surely to look very carefully at the proposals that are being made for overspill. I do not want to go into that aspect now because it raises different issues but the whole picture must be looked at and I feel sure that the hon. Member will agree with the approach I am taking.
We want to look at development districts and I.D.C. policy very carefully, but we must insist that all the applications for extensions in heavily congested areas, particularly the Greater London and Greater Birmingham areas, are looked at very critically. But I assure the hon. Member that, as far as we know, we have had no complaints that suggest that the tough policy of the last Government caused any great hardship to any firms. Individual firms may protest that their development is being frustrated if we refuse applications in getting a little more critical, but we must set that against those firms which complain—and this happens frequently—that new developments undertaken by other firms in their neighbourhood are stealing their workers away from them.
These are some of the factors we have to balance. I assure the hon. Member that the needs of individual firms are not ignored when I.D.C. applications are under consideration. Each application is thoroughly examined. Full discussions are held with the applicants and we give every opportunity to them to argue their case. The large number of applications that are approved in such areas as the Midlands and the South-East are evidence of the consideration which has been given to every case.
Another point needs making. The hon. Member touched upon it. When I.D.C. applications are being considered there is discussion with the other Departments involved. He is right in saying that public services in the development districts must be looked at so that we can make them more attractive to firms that we hope will go there. This is where our regional planning proposals come in.
I assure the hon. Member that the close consultation which has taken place in the past under the last Government


between the Board of Trade and other Departments will be continued and, indeed, strengthened and made more effective by the regional planning proposals which will be announced this week.
I feel sure that, although we must stress also that all applications for I.D.C.s in congested districts must be examined very critically, we do not ignore the points the hon. Member has raised. We shall make sure that all applicants receive the fullest consideration and that we do not interfere with efficiency and the reasonable development of industry in any way.

Mr. Harold Gurden: Many of the industries peculiar to the Midlands are service industries serving the larger industries. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they are dealt with fairly? There are thousands of these small firms and the

whole economy could be disrupted, particularly in such industries as the car industry. It would be to the advantage of the country if these smaller businesses were more generously dealt with in relation to their size. More could be gained by persuading larger industries to move rather than hurt the great service these small businesses do.

Mr. Darling: That raises wider issues, but I think I said that it may be that one solution is to get larger industries to move en bloc.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past One o'clock.